ML16165A453

From kanterella
Revision as of 14:38, 16 March 2019 by StriderTol (talk | contribs) (Created page by program invented by StriderTol)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Revision 20 to Updated Final Safety Analysis Report, Chapter 2, Site Characteristics
ML16165A453
Person / Time
Site: Fermi, 07200071  DTE Energy icon.png
Issue date: 05/26/2016
From:
DTE Energy
To:
Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
Shared Package
ML16165A442 List:
References
NRC-16-0034
Download: ML16165A453 (569)
v • d • e


Text

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-1 REV 16 10/09 CHAPTER 2: SITE CHARACTERISTICS

2.1 GEOGRAPHY

AND DEMOGRAPHY Section 2.1 was prepared circa 1974 at the time of preparation of the original FSAR. It has not been updated in the area of geography and demography since it represents the area at the time the Construction Permit was issued. Minor changes were made in Subsection 2.1.3.5 in response to questions from the NRC in 1979.

2.1.1 Site Location The Fermi 2 power plant is located at the Fermi site on the western shore of Lake Erie at Lagoona Beach, Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan (see Figures 2.1-1 through 2.1-3). The plant is approximately 8 miles east-northeast of Monroe, Michigan; 30 miles southwest of downtown Detroit, Michigan; and 25 miles northeast of downtown Toledo, Ohio. The coordinates of the Fermi 2 reactor containment structure are latitude 4157'48"N, and longitude 8315'31"W. The Universal Transverse Mercator coordinates are 4,647,950 m north and 312,930 m east, Zone 17T.

2.1.2 Site Description The Fermi site comprises approximately 1260 acres of land solely owned by The Detroit Edison Company (Edison). The site is bounded on the north by Swan Creek, on the east by Lake Erie, on the south by Pointe Aux Peaux Road, and on the west by Toll Road. Entrance to the site is from the west by way of Enrico Fermi Drive, a private road owned by Edison, and from the south via Pointe Aux Peaux Road to another private road also owned by Edison. The northern and southern areas of the site are dominated by large lagoons. The western areas are dominated by several woodlots and quarry lakes. Site elevation ranges from the level of Lake Erie, on the eastern edge of the site, to approximately 25 ft above the lake level, on the western edge of the site.

An aerial photograph of the site taken May 5, 1983, is presented in Figure 2.1-4. A plot plan of the Fermi site showing the plant, its natural draft cooling towers, and other major structures is presented in Figure 2.1-5. In accordance with 10 CFR l00, the exclusion area for Fermi 2 has been defined as that area within 915 m of the reactor containment structure. As indicated in Figure 2.1-5, this area encompasses a portion of adjoining Lake Erie.

2.1.2.1 Exclusion Area Control The land portion of the exclusion area for Fermi 2 is entirely within the Fermi site.

Consequently, Edison has the authority to determine all activities within the land portion of the exclusion area, including authority for the exclusion of personnel and property. No public roads, waterways, or railroads traverse the land portion of the exclusion area.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-2 REV 16 10/09 The Lake Erie shoreline of the plant site is unsuitable for beach activities. The limited beach area available is inaccessible to the public from the land side and is posted as private property. Few plant-unrelated activities are expected to take place on Lake Erie adjacent to the plant site. These will be primarily fishing from boats and pleasure craft; however, due to poor fishing and the shallow characteristics of the lake in this area, boating activities are not carried out in proximity to the shoreline. Past experience at the site has indicated the public has made little or no attempt to use the shoreline area or to approach the site from the lake.

The emergency plans are described in Section 13.3.

2.1.2.2 Boundaries for Establishing Effluent Release Limits The boundary used to establish Technical Specifications limits for the release of gaseous effluents from Fermi 2, in accordance with 10 CFR 20.106(a) and other related as-low-as-reasonably-achievable provisions, is based on the boundary of the Fermi site. The site boundaries for gaseous effluents and for liquid effluents shall be as shown in Figure 2.1-5.

As shown in Figure 2.1-5, the closest on-land boundary line is approximately 915 m from the center line of the reactor building. This closest on-land boundary line corresponds to the maximum site boundary value of the meteorological dispersion parameter (c/Q) calculated for the baseline year 1974-1975. Virtually all of the 1120

-acre site is enclosed by a perimeter fence, restricting casual access to the property. Additionally, a fenced-in area surrounds the immediate plant area within the Fermi site, shown in Figure 2.1-5. Access to the plant area will be continually and actively controlled by Edison. Only those persons specifically authorized will have access to this area. In those areas of the southern portion of the Fermi site outside the plant fenced-in area, the public will be permitted to use only those facilities specifically designated by Edison.

Normal surveillance of these areas will be maintained by Edison, which, as sole owner of the entire Fermi site, has the authority to exclude personnel and property from the designated areas.2.1.3 Population and Population Distribution Figure 2.1-3 shows the locations of the municipalities and other cultural features surrounding the plant within 10 miles. Towns and cities in the region surrounding the plant within 50 miles are shown in Figure 2.1-2. These centers of population are listed in Table 2.1-1, along with their 1970 resident populations and their distances and directions from the plant.

2.1.3.1 Population Within 10 Miles Within 10 miles of the plant, the estimated 1970 population was 63,963 persons; within 5 miles, it was 11,135 persons. The following communities, as identified by the 1970 Census of Population, and indicated in Figure 2.1-3, are within 10 miles of the plant:

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-3 REV 16 10/09 1973 Population Distance (miles) and Direction from Plant Stony Point 1,370 1 SSW Estral Beach 419 2 NE Woodland Beach 2,249 3 WSW Detroit Beech 2,053 4 WSW Monroe (closest point) 23,894 5.5 SW South Monroe 3,012 6 SW South Rockwood 1,477 8 N Rockwood 3,119 9 N Carleton 1,503 9 NW Patterson Gardens 2,169 9 W The City of Monroe and the villages of Estral Beach, South Rockwood, and Carleton are the only incorporated communities. Estimates of the 1970 resident population within 5 miles of the plant were determined from house counts and 1970 census data. The house counts were determined from June 1970 aerial photographs obtained from the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) (Reference 1). House counts were converted to population by applying the ratios of persons to housing units obtained from 1970 census data (Reference 2). For the townships concerned (all in Monroe County), these ratios are Berlin 3.53 Frenchtown 3.62 Ash 3.71 The resultant population data were assumed to be applicable, without adjustments, to April

1970. Beyond the 5-mile radius, population estimates were based on 1970 census data (Reference 3) and the corresponding state map, account being taken of the population estimated to be within 5 miles of the plant. Use was made of data for the smallest applicable census unit (e.g., village, town, city, or township). From this state map, census units within each segment of the population wheel were identified, and their fractions within each segment determined.

It was assumed that the population within each census unit was uniformly distributed. Population projections for areas within 10 miles for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020 were based on corresponding projections for the individual counties concerned. There were no population projections available for census units smaller than counties. It was assumed that each component (or fraction) of a county had the same decennial rate of growth as that for the county as a whole. Monroe and Wayne are the only counties with areas within 10 miles of the plant. Projections by SEMCOG were available for both counties for 1970, 1980, and 1990 (Reference 1). The FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-4 REV 16 10/09 1970-1980 and 1980-1990 decennial rates of growth derived from these projections were applied to the 1970 census data to obtain the projected 1980 and 1990 populations. The projected 2000, 2010, and 2020 populations of the counties were derived by assuming their decennial rate of growth from 1990 to 2020 to be constant and equal to the average of the 1970-1980 and 1980-1990 rates of growth. Figure 2.1-6 shows the estimated 1970 population distribution within 10 miles of the plant. Figures 2.1-7 through 2.1-11 show corresponding projected populations for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. These projected population data are the unrounded mathematical results of the methods described above.

2.1.3.2 Population Between 10 and 50 Miles The 1970 population and projections between 10 and 50 miles were determined in accordance with the method used for the area between 5 and 10 miles from the plant. For the areas within Canada, use was made of the June 1, 1971, Canadian census data (Reference 4) and corresponding provincial map. Using data from the previous Canadian census of June 1, 1966 (Reference 5), and assuming linearity, the 1971 Canadian census data were adjusted to April 1, 1970, so they would coincide with the 1970 U.S. census data. For population projection purposes, counties between 10 and 50 miles of the plant were divided into four groups:

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

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-5 REV 16 10/09 Official projections for Essex and Kent, the two Canadian counties, were not available. Projected 1980-2020 populations of these counties were based on their adjusted April 1, 1970, populations and were derived by assuming their decennial rates of growth from 1970 and 2020 to be constant and equal to their 1961-1971 rates of growth determined from Canadian census data.

Figure 2.1-6 shows the estimated 1970 population distribution between 10 and 50 miles from the plant. Figures 2.1-7 through 2.1-11 show corresponding projected populations for the years 1980, 1990, 2000, 2010, and 2020. These projected population data are the unrounded mathematical results of the methods described above.

2.1.3.3 Low-Population Zone In accordance with criteria specified in 10 CFR 100, the outer boundary of the low-population zone (LPZ) for Fermi 2 will be 3 miles (4827 m) from the containment structure.

The estimated resident population distribution within this distance for the years 1970 through 2020 is shown in Table 2.1-2. Population distribution for distances up to 50 miles from the plant is shown in Figures 2.1-6 through 2.1-11; a detailed map of the LPZ is shown in Figure 2.1-12. The area within the LPZ does not contain either agricultural or industrial activities that would create a daily transient population of any magnitude. Therefore, other than the recreational activities that draw daily users, the daily population is relatively stable. As stated in Subsection 2.1.4.2.3, the population in the communities within the LPZ that have beach and boating facilities is predominantly permanent, and the facilities are for resident use. The schools, hospitals, institutions, and recreational areas are shown in Tables 2.1-3 through 2.1-5. Sterling State Park and Point Mouillee State Game Area are approximately 5 miles from the Fermi 2 site and annually attract about 385,000 and 180,000 visitors, respectively, as shown in Table 2.1-5. Approximately 70 percent of use occurs between April and November.

2.1.3.4 Transient Population 2.1.3.4.1 Seasonal Agricultural and Horticultural Labor Needs for seasonal agricultural and horticultural labor (including migrant workers) in Monroe County are listed in Table 2.1-6. Peak requirements, which occur in the month of October, are for a total of about 2335 seasonal workers, 34 percent of whom are expected to be migrant workers. Needs for such seasonal labor are at a minimum during the winter months, down to a total of about 230 workers, 12 percent of whom would be migrant workers. Following are 1972 data on migrant workers within 10 miles of Fermi 2 (Reference 8):

Employers Number of Migrant Workers Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Smith and Son 75 8 NW J. F. Ilgenfritz 30 10 WSW FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-6 REV 16 10/09 Employers Number of Migrant Workers Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Tracy Gaynier 12 11 SW Don Wolmer 20 12 WSW Walter Iott 20 12 WSW 2.1.3.4.2 Historical Attractions There are two facilities in the City of Monroe that draw large numbers of visitors each year: the Custer Museum, 8 miles west-southwest of the plant; and the Monroe County Historical Museum, 8 miles west-southwest of the plant. In 1972, the former had approximately 12,000 visitors and the latter about 45,000 (Reference 9).

2.1.3.4.3 Commuters Monroe and Wayne are the only two counties with areas within 10 miles of the plant site.

Monroe County has an inflow of 1500 commuters and an outflow of 19,292 commuters, a net loss of 17,792 individuals per day. Wayne County, with an inflow of 139,305 and an outflow of 165,754 commuters, has a net loss of 26,449 individuals per day (Reference 10).

2.1.3.4.4 Seasonal Homes Within 10 miles of the plant, according to the 1970 census data, there were 51 seasonal homes in Monroe County and 26 in Wayne County (Reference 11). Many of the houses that had been used in the past as summer cottages are currently used as permanent homes.

2.1.3.5 Population Center The nearest population center, as defined in 10 CFR 100, is the City of Monroe, which had a 1970 population of 23,894. Its nearest corporate boundary is approximately 5.5 miles southwest of Fermi 2. The residential population distribution of the city and the surrounding jurisdiction (Frenchtown Township) shows this distance to be a valid, conservative figure for use as the population center distance. The concentrated residential section of the city is farther distant from the plant site, with the closest portion of the city along the northeastern boundary being predominantly open for industrial development (Reference 12). Frenchtown Township in 1977 was composed of scattered, small residential clusters and a few small communities along the shore of Lake Erie (Reference 13). The 1975 total population was estimated to be 15,900 over a land area of 27,000 acres an average density of about 0.6 person/acre (Reference 13). Future land use and residential population distribution for the city and township were also examined to determine the potential influence of proposed growth on the population center distance. The Monroe land use plan did not propose further expansion on the northeast edge of the city. Some annexation had taken place on the west, but further annexation was not considered likely in 1979 (Reference 14).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-7 REV 16 10/09 The land area within the city boundary was slated to remain predominantly open or industrial. One small tract (approximately 39 acres) was proposed for potential residential development (Reference 12). The future growth of Monroe based on data available in 1979 would not create any densely populated residential land closer than 5.5 miles from Fermi 2. Land use plans for Frenchtown Township indicated that future residential growth will take place in the vicinity of Fermi 2. Land use plans call for development of the corridor between Monroe and Fermi 2 and along the Lake Erie shore (Reference 13). A mixture of land uses was proposed; however, it was mainly recreational and low density (average of one dwelling unit per acre) and medium density (1 to 4 dwelling units per acre) residential. A 450-acre tract on the northeastern corner of the growth area had been rezoned from agricultural to residential use. This land, like most of the area, had severe soil limitations based on high water table, fair

-to-poor bearing capacity, and moderate volume change. For this reason, the staff of the Monroe County Planning Commission had reservations about the residential rezoning of the site and suggested rezoning only for low density (Reference 15) (one dwelling unit per acre).

Based on the distribution and density of the proposed future land use, Frenchtown Township was not expected to form a contiguous extension of the population center of Monroe or develop into a separate densely populated center. From these facts it was apparent that the 5.5-mile population center distance would remain valid in the future.

2.1.3.6 Public Facilities and Institutions A survey was conducted to locate public facilities and institutions, such as schools, hospitals, prisons, and parks, within 10 miles of the plant.

2.1.3.6.1 Schools Schools within 10 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.1-3 and indicated in Figure 2.1-13 (References 16 through 20). Closest to the plant is the Brest School at Woodland Beach (2.5 miles west-southwest) with a 1972 enrollment of 163. The Monroe County Community College, a 2

-year college, is located 11 miles west-southwest of the plant and had a 1972 enrollment of 1676 students.

2.1.3.6.2 Hospitals Data on hospitals and nursing facilities are contained in Table 2.1-4 (References 21 through 26). The closest facility to the plant is the Frenchtown Convalescent Center, 6 miles west, with 226 beds.2.1.3.6.3 Prisons The only jail within 10 miles of the plant is the Monroe County Jail, located in the City of Monroe. It has an average of 50 inmates per day (Reference 27).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-8 REV 16 10/09 2.1.3.6.4 Recreational Areas Recreational areas within 10 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.1-5 and indicated in Figure 2.1-14 (References 9 and 28 through 30). The recreational facilities closest to the plant are Stony Point Beach, about 2 miles south, and Estral Beach, 2 miles northeast.

Swimming is reported to take place there. The largest facility in the area is Sterling State Park, 5 miles southwest of the plant.

2.1.4 Uses of Adjacent Lands and Waters 2.1.4.1 Agricultural Activities Approximately 95 percent of the land area within 10 miles of Fermi 2 is within Monroe County, with the remaining 5 percent in Wayne County. About 71 percent of the land in Monroe County was used for farming; however, only 55 percent of the land within 10 miles of the plant consisted of farms. Farmland use within 10 miles of the plant in 1973 was as follows (Reference 31):

Crop Percentage of Farmland Soybeans 50 Corn 22 Wheat 7 Miscellaneous (vegetables, hay, oats, and grazing and pastureland) 7 Idle Cropland 14 Total 100 Data on the principal crops grown within 10 miles of the plant site in 1973 (Reference 31) were as follows:

Crop Acreage Annual Production (bushels) Value Soybeans 21,000 840,000 $2,940,000 Corn 9,500 902,500 $1,173,250 Wheat 3,150 126,000 $252,000 All soybeans and wheat were sold as cash crops. Approximately 75 percent of the corn was sold as a cash crop; the remaining 25 percent was used for feed. The large livestock, poultry, and crop farms located within the environs of the Fermi site in 1973 are listed below:

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-9 REV 16 10/09 Owner Farm Type and Information Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Ronald Welb Poultry - 2,500 laying hens 5 NW Del Chapman Livestock

- 1,500 sheep 7 N Smith and Sons Vegetables and greenhouse products 8 NW Butler Farms Livestock

- 500 beef cattle 10 W St. Mary's Farm Livestock

- 200 beef cattle 10 W Clayton Dick Poultry - 15,000 to 20,000 laying hens 16 WSW Lennard and Sons Potato farm

- 2,000 acres 16 WSW The Lennard and Sons farm was the largest potato farm in the State of Michigan, with a gross annual income of approximately $1.8 million. The Smith and Sons farm was one of the largest vegetable and greenhouse-product producers in the State of Michigan, with a gross annual income exceeding $500,000. Table 2.1-7 contains data on the 29 dairy farms within l8 miles of the plant in 1971, and Figure 2.1-15 indicates their locations. Ten of these dairy farms were within 10 miles. The closest, owned by John Reiger and containing about 30 milking cows, was approximately 4 miles west of the plant. The only other dairy farm within 5 miles was that of Henry Noel.

This dairy farm was approximately 5 miles northwest of the plant and had approximately 25 milking cows in 1973 (References 32, 33, and 34). The productive cows nearest the plant were located 3 miles north-northwest. Milk from these four cows was used for home consumption. Livestock and dairy operations within 10 miles of the plant had been going out of business.

Tax increases over the past years (an increase of $40 per acre in 1972) and attractive offers for farmland ($1000 to $1500 per acre) resulted in many farmers selling their grazing and pastureland and accepting employment with local industries (Reference 31). Agricultural statistics for Monroe County indicated that in 1964 there were approximately 3549 dairy cattle. In 1972 there were only 2100 dairy cattle. The County Agricultural Cooperative Extension Service was then discouraging new livestock and dairy operations within the county; however, it was assisting established farms to remain in operation. Crop farmers in the county were able to continue their operations due to the high productivity of the land, which compensated for the large tax increases (Reference 31).

In 1967, approximately 10 percent (approximately 37,700 acres) of the county's land was developed. However, agricultural land was being rapidly developed for nonagricultural purposes as the county became more urbanized. The comprehensive development plan of 1967 (Reference 35) for Monroe County called for the retention of agricultural land to serve as buffers between recommended major development corridors. Accordingly, this plan specified that the majority of land located west of U.S. Route 23 and U.S. Route 24, and west of Interstate 75 in the northeast quadrant of the county, be reserved primarily for agricultural use (Figure 2.1-16).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-10 REV 16 10/09 Economic projections showed that as the county grew and became more urbanized, some farmlands would be lost to urban development and farm employment would decrease. Farm employees would continue to be attracted to high-paying nonagricultural occupations, and farms would adopt additional labor-saving methods and machinery. It was estimated that by 1980 farm employment in the county would decrease to about 2 percent of the labor force as compared to 5.8 percent in 1960 (Reference 35). The small portion of Wayne County within 10 miles of the plant was predominantly a residential area and had only a limited amount of agricultural activity: small crops of field corn, soybeans, hay, and some fresh market vegetables. There were no dairy farms in this area in 1973 (Reference 36). Agricultural statistics of all counties within 50 miles of the plant site are presented in Tables 2.1-8 through 2.1-11 for the 1969 to 1971 time period (References 37 and 38).

2.1.4.2 Water Uses The most prominent body of water in the environs of the Fermi site is Lake Erie. Rivers and streams entering Lake Erie within 10 miles of the site are shown in Figure 2.1-17. The five drainage basins within a 10-mile radius of the site are as follows (Reference 39):

Drainage Basin Drainage Area (square miles)

Area between the Huron and Rouge Basins 120 Huron River 923 Stony and Swan Creeks 290 River Raisin 1,043 Southeast Monroe County 189 A detailed description of the hydrology of the region is presented in Section 2.4.

2.1.4.2.1 Potable Water Supplies As shown in Figure 2.1-18, privately owned wells and four municipal water systems served the area within 10 miles of the Fermi site in the 1970 time period. The four municipal systems are those of Detroit, Monroe, Flat Rock, and Toledo (Ohio). The Detroit system served most of Wayne County. In the area within 10 miles of the plant, this water system served portions of Brownstown Township, Rockwood, South Rockwood, the City of Carleton, and Berlin Township. The Flat Rock system served portions of Brownstown Township and Rockwood. The Monroe system, which has its intake on Lake Erie, served most of Frenchtown Township, the City of Monroe, and Monroe Township. The service area of the Toledo system included portions of La Salle and Erie Townships.

Although these municipal water systems provided services in these areas, homeowners who had wells prior to the construction of the municipal water services were not obligated to use them. Consequently, about 15 percent of the homeowners in the service areas of these municipal systems were still obtaining their potable water from individually owned wells.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-11 REV 16 10/09 Owners of newly constructed dwellings in these service areas, however, were obligated to obtain their potable water from the municipal system.

Within 10 miles of the plant, homeowners outside the service areas of the municipal systems obtained their potable water from individually owned wells. These wells ranged in depth from 50 to 120 ft; however, well depths generally do not exceed 70 ft (Subsection 2.4.13.2).

Throughout Monroe County there were approximately 6000 active wells in 1972, mostly in the western half of the county. The number of wells drilled from 1964 to 1972 in each of the townships wholly or partially within a 10-mile radius of the Fermi site was reported (Reference 40) to be as follows: Frenchtown 336 Ash 21 6 Raisinville 324 Berlin 207 Monroe 115 Exeter 132 La Salle 288 Figure 2.1-19 shows the approximate number of wells in use in 1972 and their distribution within 10 miles of the currently unused quarry at the Fermi site (Reference 41). The quality of well-water in Monroe County is generally poor. Efforts were being made for expanded use of municipal water services from the Detroit, Monroe, and Toledo systems. Plans in 1973 showed that Toledo would eventually serve not only La Salle and Erie Townships, but Bedford and Whiteford Townships as well (Reference 40). The Monroe system was planning a new treatment facility in the same region as the 1973 facility to increase the intake capacity to 4.5 billion gal per year, an increase of approximately 125 percent over the 1973 capacity. Future plans called for the servicing of the entire Frenchtown region, Raisinville, Dundee, and parts of London Township. No data on initial construction were available in 1972 (Reference 42). The Monroe water system has its intake on Lake Erie, in the Pointe Aux Peaux region, approximately 1 mile south of the Fermi site.

The intake is 5260 ft long and 2.5 ft in diameter (Reference 43). The 1973 plans for the Detroit water system showed that Ash Township was considering the use of Detroit water, while Exeter and London Townships were negotiating for service (Reference 40).

At one time, bottled water was being used as potable water by the communities along the Lake Erie shoreline because of the poor quality of the well-water. This condition has since been alleviated as a result of the services provided by the municipal water systems (Reference 40).

The following 1973 data on other municipal water systems in Monroe County (Reference 43) are provided for reference:

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-12 REV 16 10/09 Syste m Source Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Yearly Production (millions of gallons)

Area Served Village of Dundee River Raisin 19 W 70.8 Village of Dundee Village of Petersburg 2 wells 21 WSW 53.0 Village of Petersburg The Flat Rock water intake is located on the Huron River at a point about 10 miles north of the plant. Its average withdrawal is about 750,000 gal per day (Reference 44). Data on municipal water intakes (including those of Toledo and Monroe) from Lake Erie are presented in Table 2.1-12 (1969-1972 data). The locations of the intakes for these municipal water systems are shown in Figure 2.1-20 (References 31, 45, and 46).

2.1.4.2.2 Agricultural Water Supplies Within 10 miles of the plant in 1973, the Smith and Sons farm was the only agricultural user of surface water. The intake of this farm was on Swan Creek, at a point about 8 miles northwest of the plant. Water from this intake was used for irrigation and cattle watering.

Within 50 miles of the plant, there were no known withdrawals of water from Lake Erie for agricultural irrigation or livestock watering. Previously existing withdrawals for agricultural purposes had been discontinued in this area. This was primarily a result of the residential development along the lakeshore (Reference 31).

2.1.4.2.3 Recreational Water Uses Along the shoreline of Lake Erie in Monroe County there are numerous communities with beach and boating facilities.

Recreational activities at these places include swimming, water-skiing, motorboating, and sportfishing. The following are the principal recreational areas in the environs of the Fermi site: Community Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Pointe Aux Peaux 1 S Stony Point 1 SSW Estral Beach 2 NE Woodland Beach 3 WSW Detroit Beach 4 WSW Avalon Beach 9 SW Toledo Beach 11 S W Luna Pier 15 SW The majority of the homes in these communities were at one time used as summer cottages; however, most of them were being used as permanent homes in 1973. The water quality along the beaches of these communities was below that required by applicable standards for sports involving body contact with the water. Sterling State Park, located along the Lake FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-13 REV 16 10/09 Erie shoreline 5 miles southwest of the plant site, was closed for swimming because of poor water quality. However, in spite of water quality and water-quality standards, water

-sport activities continued to take place on the shoreline area in 1973 (Reference 40).

2.1.4.2.4 Fishing Sportfishing activities in the general environs of the Fermi site are conducted off the shores of Lake Erie and along the shores of the River Raisin, and Stony and Swan Creeks. Lake Erie fish include carp, sheepshead, bullheads, suckers, channel catfish, white bass, yellow perch, and walleye. Fish in the River Raisin and Stony and Swan Creeks include panfish, suckers, catfish, perch, and bass (Reference 47).

There were approximately six commercial fishermen in 1973 who used the shores of Lake Erie in the Monroe County area. In 1971, the fish catch was approximately 172,736 lb, representing an estimated value of $24,343 (Reference 47). Commercial fishing in this area slackened over the 2-year period of 1972 and 1973 because of low availability of fish. However, as a result of improving conditions, it was predicted that commercial fishing would increase. A summary of commercial fish landings taken from Lake Erie statistical districts in 1971 is presented in Table 2.1-13 for the Province of Ontario, and Table 2.1-14 for the State of Ohio (References 48 and 49). The respective districts are illustrated in Figure 2.1-21.

2.1.4.2.5 Industrial Water Use Within 10 miles of the plant site, 1974 industrial users of Lake Erie water included the Fermi l Power Plant, the Monroe Power Plant, Union Camp Corporation, and Consolidated Packaging Corporation. The Fermi 1 plant, an oil-fired peaking unit located on the Fermi site, drew both potable and cooling water from Lake Erie. Potable water usage during 1971 and 1972 was 25 million gal per year and 19 million gal per year, respectively. It should be noted that the potable water system for Fermi 1 was the source of demineralized water for the construction of Fermi 2. Cooling water use averaged approximately 72 million gal per day when Fermi 1 was in operation. The Fermi 1 breeder reactor and oil-fired power plant have been permanently decommissioned. Four combustion turbine peakers are still in use on the site. The Monroe Power Plant, which is approximately 6 miles south-southwest of the Fermi site, obtains the major portion of its cooling water from Lake Erie at an intake located about 1300 ft from Lake Erie on the River Raisin. Monroe Unit 1 began operating in 1971, Unit 2 in 1972, Unit 3 in 1973, and Unit 4 in 1974. Each of these four units requires an average of 350,000 gpm for cooling purposes. Discharge is through a canal to Lake Erie. Their potable water supply is obtained from the City of Monroe (Reference 50). The Union Camp Corporation (Reference 51) and the Consolidated Packaging Corporation (Reference 52), both located in the City of Monroe, have their Lake Erie intakes in the Sterlin g State Park region, which is approximately 5 miles southwest of the Fermi site. The water is piped approximately 3 miles overland to the corporate sites. After usage, it is discharged into the River Raisin at a point approximately 2 miles inland from Lake Erie. Both of these industries share the same pumping and discharging facilities. Their average daily withdrawals are approximately 3 million and 2.6 million gal, respectively. Both facilities obtain their potable water supplies from the Monroe municipal water system.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.1-14 REV 16 10/09 In Monroe, the Ford Motor Company has a large manufacturing plant (2700 employees) that has a water intake on the River Raisin at a point approximately 1.2 miles upriver from Lake Erie. From this intake, the Ford plant draws an average of approximately 12 million gal per day. This water is used for industrial purposes only. The potable water required for the plant is obtained from the City of Monroe at the rate of 200,000 gal per day (Reference 53).

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.1 GEOGRAPHIC

AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES 2.1-15 REV 16 10/09

1. Small Area Forecasting System for S. E. Michigan, 1972, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan, 1972.
2. 1970 Census of Population: General Population Characteristics, Report PC (1)-B24, Michigan, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce, August

1971. 3. 1970 Census of Population: Number of Inhabitants, Reports PC (1)-A24, Michigan, July 1971, and PC (1)-A37, Ohio, August 1971, Bureau of the Census, U.S. Department of Commerce.

4. Advance Bulletin: 1971 Census of Canada, Catalogue 92-753 (AP-2), Statistics, Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Commerce; Ottawa, Canada, June 1972.
5. 1966 Census of Canada Population of Counties and Subdivisions of Ontario, Catalogues No.92-605, Vol. 1, Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Commerce, Ottawa, Canada 1967.
6. Michigan Population by County, 1960, 1970-1978, Research Division, Bureau of Programs and Budget, Executive Office, State of Michigan, 1972.
7. Ohio Population Forecasts, by County, Ohio Department of Development, Division of Economic and Community Affairs, State of Ohio, 1970.
8. Edgar C. Kidd, Needs for Seasonal Agricultural and Horticultural Labor in Monroe County, Extension Agricultural Agent, Monroe County, Monroe, Michigan, May 9, 1972.
9. Gerald Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Switlik, Museum Director, Monroe County Historical Museum, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversations, March

3, 1973. 10. Place of Work, Residents 1970, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan, February 2, 1972.

11. 1970 Census Data

, 1st Count, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, Detroit, Michigan, February 2, 1972.

12. City of Monroe Land Use Plan, The Department of Community Development, Monroe, Michigan, August 1978.
13. Land Use Plan - Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan, Frenchtown Township Planning Commission, Parkins, Rogers and Associates, May 1977.
14. Personal conversation, Mr. Eric Anderson, Planner, City of Monroe, Michigan, Office of Community Development, March 20, 1979.
15. Staff Memorandum, Monroe County Planning Commission Staff, February 8, 1979.

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.1 GEOGRAPHIC

AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES 2.1-16 REV 16 10/09

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.1 GEOGRAPHIC

AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES 2.1-17 REV 16 10/09

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.1 GEOGRAPHIC

AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES 2.1-18 REV 16 10/09

45. Gerald Edgely, NUS Corporation, and the following officials, Telephone Communications: Water Systems Name Title Ashtabula Mr. Smith Administrative Assistant Conneaut Mr. Coates Chief Operator Vermilion Mr. Strittrather Superintendant of Water Lorain Mr. Emerick Superintendant of Water Cleveland Mr. Mash Duty Project Engineer Fairport Mr. Killimen Superintendant of Water Erie Mr. Prazer Bureau Chief Buffalo Mr. Martin Senior Administrative Assistant Dunkirk Mr. Smagner Assistant Operator Port Colborne Mr. Farbiak Area Foreman Port Maitland Mr. Sakamopo Project Service Manager Port Stanley Mrs. Taylor Secretary-Treasurer Blenheim Mr. Gawley Secretary-Treasurer Leamington Mr. Sanger Secretary-Treasurer Kingsville Mr. Sanger Secretary-Treasurer Detroit Mr. Janeczko Public Information Monroe Mr. J. D. D'Haene Supervisor of Filtration Toledo Mr. Hixson Chief Engineer for Water Port Clinton Mr. Held Chief Operator Sandusky Mr. Showalter Assistant Superintendant Huron Mr. Hetrick Director of Utilities Port Dover Mr. Barry Foreman Wheatly Mr. Thompson Secretary-Treasurer 46. Lake Erie, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York Intake Water Quality, Summary 1970, Environmental Protection Agency, Region V, August 1971.
47. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and Ned Fogie, Great Lakes Fish Specialist, Great Lakes Section, Fishery Division, Lansing, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, January 9, 1973.
48. Lawrence R. Kolbicka, NUS Corporation, and J. W. Rousom, Supervisor, Commercial Fish Section, Ministry of Natural Resources, Province of Ontario, Canada, Information Received, January 23, 1973.

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.1 GEOGRAPHIC

AND DEMOGRAPHY REFERENCES 2.1-19 REV 16 10/09

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 5 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-1 Town/City a TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE 1970 Population Distance (miles) and Direction From Site 0-10 Miles Stony Point 1,370 1 SSW Estral Beach 419 2 NE Woodland Beach 2,249 3 WSW Detroit Beach 2,053 4 WSW Monroe (closest point) 23,894 5.5 SW South Monroe 3,012 6 SW South Rockwood 1,477 8 N Patterson Gardens 2,169 9 W Rockwood 3,119 9 N Carleton 1,503 9 NW 10-20 Miles Flat Rock 5,643 11 N Gibralte r 3,325 11 NNE Amherstburg, Ontario (Canada) 5,045 12 NE Luna Pier 1,418 12 SW Woodhaven 3,330 13 N Trenton 24,127 13 NNE Maybee 485 14 WNW Grosse Ile 7,799 15 NNE Riverview 11,342 17 NNE Harrow, Ontario (Canada) 1,964 18 ENE Southgate 33,909 18 N Harbor View, Ohio 238 19 SSW Reno Beach, Ohio 1,049 19 S Wyandotte 41,061 19 NNE 20-30 Miles Dundee 2,472 20 W Taylor 70,020 20 N Belleville 2,406 21 NNW Allen Park 40,747 22 N Ecorse 17,515 22 NNE FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 5 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-1 Town/City a TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE 1970 Population Distance (miles) and Direction From Site Lambertville 5,721 22 SW Lincoln Park 52,984 22 NNE Melvindale 13,862 23 NNE Petersburg 1,227 23 W River Rouge 15,947 23 NNE Milan 4,533 24 WNW

Dearborn 109,

358 25 N Inkster 38,420 25N Norwood 30,420 25 SSW Toledo, Ohio 383,818 25 SW Wayne 21,054 25 NNW Clay Center 370 26 S Essex, Ontario (Canada) 3,941 26 NE Deerfield 834 27 W Detroit 1,511,482 27 NE Garden City 41,864 27 N Kingsville, Ontario (Canada) 3,952 27 ENE Ottawa Hills, Ohio 4,270 27 SW Dearborn Heights 80,069 28 N Milbury, Ohio 771 28 SSW Sylvania, Ohio 12,031 28 SW Windsor, Ontario (Canada) 200,790 28 NNE Westland 86,749 28 NNW Ypsilanti 29,538 28 NW Britton 697 29 W Genoa, Ohio 2,139 29 S Rocky Ridge, Ohio 385 29 S Rossford, Ohio 5,302 29 SSW Walbridge, Ohio 3,208 29 SSW 30-40 Miles Highland Park 35,444 31 NNE Oak Harbor, Ohio 2,807 31 SSE Put-In-Bay, Ohio 135 31 SE Saline 4,811 31 WNW Tecumseh, Ontario (Canada) 124 31 NE Blissfield 2,758 32 WSW FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 3 of 5 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-1 Town/City a TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE 1970 Population Distance (miles) and Direction From Site Elmore, Ohio 1,316 32 S Holland, Ohio 1,108 32 SW Maumee, Ohio 15,937 32 SW Perrysbury, Ohio 7,693 32 SW Plymouth 11,758 32 NNW St. Clair Beach, Ontario (Canada) 1,931 32 NE Ann Arbor 99,797 33 WSW Berkey, Ohio 294 33 S Woodville, Ohio 1,834 33 S Hamtramck 27,245 34 NNE Hazel Park 23,784 34 NNE Leamington, Ontario (Canada) 10,229 34 E Port Clinton, Ohio 7,202 34 SSE Grosse Pointe Park 15,585 35 NNE Grosse Pointe 6,637 36 NNE Luckey, Ohio 996 36 SSW Oak Park 36,762 36 N Tecumseh 7,120 36 W Farmington 13,337 37 N Belle River, Ontario (Canada) 2,739 37 NE Metamora, Ohio 594 37 WSW Northville 5,400 37 NNW Clinton 1,677 37 WNW Ferndale 30,850 38 NNE Gibsonbury, Ohio 2,585 38 S Grosse Pointe Farms 11,701 38 NNE Huntington Woods 8,536 38 N Lathrup Village 1,429 38 N Novi 9,668 38 NNW Pemberville, Ohio 1,301 38 SSW Quaker Town 837 38 N Pleasant Ridge 3,989 38 N Berkley 22,618 39 N Center Line 10,379 39 NNE Grosse Pointe Shores 3,042 39 NNE Grosse Pointe Woods 21,878 39 NE Harper Woods 20,186 39 N Marblehead, Ohio 726 39 SE FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 4 of 5 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-1 Town/City a TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE 1970 Population Distance (miles) and Direction From Site Wood Creek Farms 1,090 39 N 40-50 Miles Adrian 20,382 40 W Franklin 10,075 40 N Haskins, Ohio 549 40 SW Quaker Town North 7,101 40 N Royal Oak 85,499 40 N Bay View 798 41 SE Beverly Hills 13,598 41 N Bingham Farms 566 41 N East Detroit 45,920 41 NNE Helena, Ohio 298 41 S Madison Heights 38,599 41 NNE Southfield 69,285 41 N South Lyon 2,675 41 NNW Warren 179,260 41 NNE Waterville, Ohio 2,940 41 SW Wheatley, Ontario (Canada) 1,631 41 ENE Ballville, Ohio 1,652 42 S Birmingham 26,170 42 N Clawson 17,617 42 N Dexter 1,729 42 NW Fremont, Ohio 18,490 42 SSE Manchester 1,650 42 WNW St. Clair Shores 88,093 42 NNE Stoney Prairie, Ohio 1,913 42 S Witmore Lake 2,763 42 NW Wixom 2,010 42 NNW Bowling Green, Ohio 21,760 43 SSW Bradner, Ohio 1,140 43 S Roseville 60,529 43 NNE Tontogany, Ohio 395 43 SW Walled Lake 3,759 43 NNW Bloomfield Hills 3,672 44 N Castalia, Ohio 1,045 44 SSE Fraser 11,868 44 NNE FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 5 of 5 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-1 Town/City a TOWNS AND CITIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE 1970 Population Distance (miles) and Direction From Site Sandusky, Ohio 32,674 45 SE Lyons, Ohio 630 45 WSW Troy 39,419 45 N Wayne, Ohio 921 45 SSW Wolverine Lake 4,301 45 NNW Delta, Ohio 2,544 46 WSW Orchard Lake Village 1,487 46 N Sterling Heights 61,365 46 NNE Burgoon, Ohio 221 47 S Clyde, Ohio 5,503 47 SSE Portage, Ohio 494 47 SSW Chelsea 3,858 48 NW Bettsville, Ohio 833 48 S Brighton 2,457 48 NNW Grand Rapids, Ohio 976 48 SW Keego Harbor 3,092 48 N Milford 4,699 48 NNW Onsted 555 48 W Rising Sun, Ohio 730 48 S Sandusky South, Ohio 8,501 48 SE Sylvan Lake 2,219 48 N Tilbury, Ontario (Canada) 2,572 48 ENE Green Springs, Ohio 1,279 49 SSE Pontiac 85,279 49 N Utica 3,504 49 NNE West Milgrove, Ohio 215 49 SSW Weston, Ohio 1,269 49 SSW Clair Haven West 1,367 50 NNE Clayton 773 50 W Mt. Clemens 20,476 50 NNE Jerry City, Ohio 470 50 SSW Pinckney 921 50 NW a. Towns and cities identified by the 1970 Census of Population.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 2 REV 1 7 05/11 TABLE 2.1-3 SCHOOLS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE School a 1972 Enrollment Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Site

1. Brest 163 2.5 WSW 2. Jefferson High 848 2.8 W 3. Jefferson Jr. High 928 2.8 W Jefferson Elementary 155 4. St. Charles Schools 257 3 NNW 5. St. Anne School 205 4 WSW 6. Henry Niedermeir Elementary 230 4 NW 7. Hurd Road Elementary 752 5 WSW 8. Pt. Moulier School 57 5 NNE 9. Airport Elementary 340 6 NW 10. Golden Elementary 166 7 W 11. Zion Lutheran School 174 7 WSW 12. Cantrick Jr. High 1,437 7 WSW 13. Hollywood Elementary 455 7 WSW 14. Fred W. Riter Elementary 396 7 N 15. Christiancy Elementary 406 7 WSW 16. St. Mary Parish School 357 7 WSW 17. Orchard Elementary 137 8 WSW 18. Lincoln Elementary 700 8 WSW 19. Monroe Catholic Central 454 8 WSW 20. Riverside Elementary 298 8 WSW 21. Trinity Lutheran School 275 8 WSW 22. Monroe High 2,842 8 WSW 23. St. Mary Academy 526 8 WSW 24. Hall of the Divine Child 218 8 WSW 25. St. John School 230 8 WSW 26. St. Michael's School 350 8 WSW 27. Manor Elementary 339 8 WSW 28. Chapman Elementary 378 8 N 29. Rockwood Elementary 286 8 N 30. Borrow Elementary 170 9 N 31. Airport Community High 1,417 9 NW 32. South Monroe Townsite Elementary 357 9 WSW 33. Waterloo Elementary 257 9 WSW 34. Holy Ghost Lutheran School 101 9 WNW 35. Parsons Elementary 748 9 NW 36. Church Street Elementary 345 9 NW 37. St. Mary 345 9 NW 38. Carleton High and Jr. High 1,782 9 NW 39. Raisinville Elementary 654 10 W 40. St. Patrick School 240 10WNW 41. Carleton Elementary 227 10 NW 42. C u ster Elementary I 949 10 WSW FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 2 REV 1 7 05/11 TABLE 2.1-3 SCHOOLS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE School a 1972 Enrollment Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Site
43. C u ster Elementary II 428 10 WSW 44. Monroe County Community College 11 WSW 1,676 TOTAL (within 10 miles) 23,183 a Numbers refer to Figure 2.1-13.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-4 Hospital/Nursing Home HOSPITALS AND NURSING FACILITIES WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Number of Beds Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Site Frenchtown Convalescent Center 226 6 W Memorial Hospital of Monroe 78 7 W Mercy Hospital 126 7 WSW Monroe Convalescent Center 85 7 WSW Rockwood Children's Home 8 8 N Monroe County Shelter 17 8 WSW Beech Nursing Home 123 8 WSW Lutheran Home for the Aged 102 9 WSW Monroe Care Center (a nursing facility) 9 WSW 103 TOTAL 868 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-5 Park/Recreational Facility /Museuma RECREATIONAL AREAS WITHIN 10 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Direction

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

-14. b Attendance data were available for the following six facilities:

Number of Visitors Annually Sterling State Park 385,394 Custer Museum 12,000 Monroe County Historical Museum 45,000 Monroe County Fairgrounds 110,000 Frenchtown Park 20,000-30,000 (1974 estimates)

Point Mouillee State Game Area 180,000 User Days* *A User Day is defined as one person using the facility for at least several hours at a time.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-6 NEEDS FOR SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL LABOR IN MONROE COUNTY a Winter Peak Only March April May June July August September October November Number of Workers Nursery and Landscape 300 - 200 300 300 200 175 175 300 300 200 Percent Migrants 15 - 0 5 15 20 20 10 10 10 10 Number of Workers Commercial Fruits 140 10 20 40 40 120 40 40 140 140 60 Percent Migrants 40 0 0 10 10 40 10 10 40 40 20 Number of Workers Greenhouse Produce 120 120 60 60 50 30 10 10 10 20 20 Percent Migrants 20 20 25 25 25 10 10 10 10 10 10 Number of Workers Commercial Vegetables, Tomatoes 1200 30 40 250 300 300 500 1000 1200 1200 150 Percent Migrants 50 0 0 10 10 10 30 45 45 50 10 Number of Workers General Farm Produce 500 50 50 250 300 200 250 250 450 500 250 Percent Migrants 5 0 0 0 5 10 10 5 5 5 0 Number of Workers Potatoes 75 20 10 20 25 25 40 60 75 75 40 Percent Migrants 60 20 0 10 10 10 20 50 60 60 20 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-6 NEEDS FOR SEASONAL AGRICULTURAL AND HORTICULTURAL LABOR IN MONROE COUNTY a Winter Peak Only March April May June July August September October November Number of Workers Totals 2335 230 380 920 1015 875 1015 1535 2165 2335 720 Percent Migrants 34 12 4 7 11 17 11 30 32 34 8 Average Number Migrants 795 28 15 61 110 144 223 515 695 795 57 a "Seasonal worker" does not include farm manager, year-round hired labor, paid or unpaid year-round workers of the immediate farm family, or pick-your-own consumers. "Seasonal worker" includes migrant laborers, students, neighbors, trade-off time efforts, and others who work for 1 week or more during the year, at one location.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-7 DAIRIES WITHIN 18 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Number and Owner aNumber of Cows Distance (miles) and Direction From Plant Site

1. Fred Kemp 35 10 NW 2. Henry Noel 25 5 NW 3. William King 12 7 NNW 4. Robert Reaume 25 6 NW 5. Irving Langton 25 10 NW 6. F. Hawley and 50 8 NW J. Van Buskirk
7. Laurence Mieden 25 10 NW 8. John Reiger 30 4 W 9. Fred Falkenberg 35 9 WNW 10. Frank Kominek 25 11 WNW 11. William McGowan 30 12 WNW 12. Earl and Robert Nowitzke 40 10 NW 13. William Barnaby, Jr.

15 16 W 14. George and Ruth Doty 49 13 W 15. Wilbert Knapp 20 15 W 16. Rolland Lemerand 30 16 W 17. Stella Opferman 30 14 W 18. Alvin Parron 44 14 W 19. Lloyd Schafer 29 15 W 20. M. Knapp and W. Young 50 17 W 21. Glenn Lassey 45 13 WSW 22. Arnold Hotchkiss 40 15 W 23. Donald Doty 35 12 W 24. Jerome Verhille 6 13 WNW 25. Robert Doty 20 13 WNW 26. St. Mary's Farm 93 11 W 27. Glen Johnson 49 11 WSW 28. Reuhs Bros.

149 18 W 29. Julius Jaworski 71 18 W a Numbers refer to Figure 2.1

-15.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-8 COUNTY FARM SIZE, FARMLAND USE, AND FARM SALES OF COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1969)

Land Area of County (Acres) Land in Farms (Acres) Percent of Land in Farms Number of Farms Average Farm Size (Acres) FARMLAND USE (ACRES) FARM SALES (THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS)

CROPLAND Woodland All Other Land b Irrigated Land Value of All Agricultural Products Sold c Crops Including Nursery Products and Hay Forest Products Livestock, Poultry, and their Products Total Harvested Pasture or Grazing All Other Cropland a Total Average Per Farm MICHIGAN Monroe 356,544 253,927 71.2 2,000 126.9 221,396 162,585 4,001 54,810 15,292 17,239 726 20,052 10.0 2 40 6,317 Wayne 387,200 49,527 12.8 597 82.9 38,887 25,562 2,378 10,947 4 ,567 6,073 326 5,865 9.8 4,866 6 993 Macomb 307,328 96,934 31.5 997 97.2 77,368 47,335 6,901 23,132 9,029 10,537 1,248 13,382 13.4 9,122 22 4,237 Oakland 554,560 101,820 18.4 863 117.9 68,085 33,362 14,182 20,541 13,706 20,029 499 8,852 10.2 4,387 43 4,421 Livingston 366,080 174,047 47.5 1,099 158.3 119,832 71,810 16,496 31,526 21,125 33,090 702 11,228 10.2 2,855 56 8,317 Washtenaw 464,720 260,283 57.2 1,699 153.1 196,810 126,019 24,074 46,717 26,136 37,337 490 18,439 10.8 5,293 50 13,097 Jackson 446,848 258,094 57.8 1,577 163.6 175,259 100,751 25,618 48,890 27,559 55,276 573 16,923 10.7 3,516 62 13,346 Lenawee 481,856 403,602 83.8 2,558 157.7 335,283 241,044 12,293 81,946 30,913 37,406 640 31,912 12.5 13,427 33 18,453 OHIO Fulton 260,288 239,839 92.1 1,738 137.9 207,129 166,959 4,477 35,693 15,942 16,768 119 35,663 20.5 10,302 35 25,327 Lucas 219,776 98,521 44.8 785 125.5 88,640 74,932 1,726 11,982 4,264 5,617 279 12,386 15.8 9,646 6 2,739 Henry 265,920 266,064 100.1 1,695 156.9 238,297 200,319 5,062 32,916 11,632 16,135 13 25,876 15.3 15,088 12 10,776 Wood 396,288 371,279 93.7 2,181 170.2 333,725 280,223 7,411 46,091 16,998 20,556 326 28,256 12.9 18,202 1 10,053 Putman 311,040 306,085 98.4 1,975 154.9 272,049 231,113 9,436 31,500 16,129 17,979 123 30,056 15.2 15,738 21 14,297 Seneca 352,640 329,755 93.5 1,887 174.7 271,501 207,941 13,167 50,393 31,816 26,438 112 20,873 11.1 11,562 33 9,277 Ottawa 167,296 130,272 77.9 976 133.0 115,093 87,620 1,910 25,563 5,493 9,686 302 9,254 9.4 6,212 7 3,035 Sandusky 261,888 240,924 92.0 1,488 161.9 208,239 160,598 6,939 40,702 13,852 18,903 566 21,225 14.2 13,188 17 8,020 Erie 168,832 106,733 63.2 702 152.0 87,830 64,461 3,434 19,935 7,869 11,034 207 9,026 12.8 4,863 15 4,143 ONTARIO CANADA Kent 616,320 559,811 d 3,748 d 484,482 d 21,229 11,076 16,296 32,911 d d d d d d Essex 460,160 353,203 d 3,768 d 318,138 d 5,573 9,978 9,279 8,248 d d d d d d a Includes cropland used for soil-improvement crops, crops failure, cultivated summer fallow and idle cropland.

b Includes pastureland other than cropland and woodland pasture, rangeland, and land in house lots, barn lots, ponds, roads, etc.

c Represents market value, before taxes and expenses, of all agricultural products sold by all farms in the census areas.

d Data not available.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-9 CROPS HARVESTED IN U.S. COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1969)

Field Corn Sorghum Wheat Other Small Grains Soy Beans Hay Potatoes Veg. and Melons Berries Land in Orchards Other Crops Green House Products Under Glass Grain Silage Grain Silage County Acres Bushels Acres Acres Bushels Acres Acres Bushels Acres Acres Bushels Tons Acres Acres Acres Acres Acres Square feet MICHIGAN Lenawee 77,037 7,069,410 12,682 104 4,492 96 31,343 1,379,556 15,532 78,292 2,213,558 61,216 276 1,340 5 719 3,932 128,400 Jackson 31,384 2,389,527 9,211 - - 114 9,963 577,637 10,287 1,431 25,999 87,817 184 961 64 1,126 2,443 36,000 Washtenaw 37,167 3,058,604 7,423 159 4,208 265 15,489 596,895 14,486 11,439 287,359 89,833 340 1,929 66 773 1,991 357,921 Livingston 19,418 1,479,003 8,061 - - 134 6,418 233,206 5,688 723 16,108 77,040 23 475 19 763 2,324 21,136 Oakland 7,862 603,518 1,792 3 180 23 3,540 130,298 2,907 355 7,351 33,208 96 615 52 1,232 607 984,360 Macomb 10,188 796,486 3,789 25 800 24 4,837 176,756 4,514 3,021 76,976 29,855 482 5,480 28 1,458 1,962 1,770,327 Wayne 4,275 295,448 448 - - - 2,177 74,820 1,258 11,537 237,768 5,597 8 2,174 39 469 716 1,196,462 Monroe 39,262 3,518,839 3,524 66 4,030 48 22,684 902,666 9,283 70,220 1,826,878 16,125 2,670 4,899 70 503 4,694 630,306 OHIO Erie 17,754 1,396,548 2,097 112 3,770 20 10,810 393,438 4,636 17,174 422,382 14,742 114 3,946 28 1,305 2,378 645,000 Sandusky 43,863 3,451,504 3,449 1,341 80,513 45 20,595 769,702 8,237 54,651 1,481,979 33,877 357 7,254 46 1,409 8,159 86,840 Ottawa 10,124 670,171 1,285 270 18,250 18 13,109 429,732 5,939 37,348 791,278 28,920 2 2,827 9 1,741 4,112 33,480 Seneca 57,490 4,801,680 2,959 22 1,650 48 31,221 1,443,581 13,710 81,916 2,269,753 40,243 181 1,694 16 24 4,183 111,600 Putman 64,934 5,575,890 2,789 223 14,763 28 27,129 1,091,547 11,314 96,768 2,650,298 33,322 261 5,236 9 14 10,995 - Wood 85,879 6,313,301 3,445 30 2,975 80 40,787 1,688,582 20,604 103,803 2,749,362 48,286 13 3,336 36 69 6,513 431,796 Henry 64,190 5,627,260 2,947 12 550 6 26,306 1,141,355 10,060 78,233 2,336,747 27,171 57 3,888 5 22 7,067 3,000 Lucas 22,048 1,878,614 877 - - - 7,628 323,785 2,760 31,038 787,416 9,631 771 3,653 23 612 2,844 3,203,755 Fulton 69,122 6,330,547 10,556 50 1,000 46 17,326 742,313 6,529 50,984 1,454,446 24,669 839 2,834 21 124 695 40,148 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-10 CROPS HARVESTED IN CANADIAN COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1971) Ontario Province County a Kent Essex Corn Grain 233,745 81,002 Silage 18,013 6,479 Wheat 43,299 48,724 Oats Grain 18,453 12,719 Silage 267 350 Barley 4,962 2,068 Mixed grain 2,226 516 Rye 340 158 Field bea ns 11,719 492 Tame hay 10,537 13,521 Soy beans 115,119 118,703 Potatoes 505 3,186 Tobacco 2,005 963 Other field crops 1,322 661 a All figures are in acres.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-11 LIVESTOCK AND POULTRY OF COUNTIES WITHIN 50 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE (1969)

Chickens County Cattle Milk Cows Hogs Sheep Horses Total Hens Monroe 13,984 2,190 15,408 4,441 942 106,870 104,781 Wayne 2,328 537 1,584 500 669 32,362 31,758 Macomb 12,574 4,966 2,649 1,683 737 62,489 61,306 Oakland 12,008 2,820 3,009 2,584 2,442 58,162 57,779 Livingston 27,660 9,508 5,812 7,497 1,426 10,550 8,721 Washtenaw 33,588 10,550 23,890 53,361 1,961 126,700 111,633 Jackson 40,794 9,566 15,283 17,327 1,616 64,048 59,572 Lenawee 46,691 10,822 39,036 12,765 1,523 284,342 258,350 Fulton a39,548 6,340 71,393 2,922 670 566,494 436,571 Lucasa 3,968 499 10,470 421 250 113,068 112,861 Henrya 13,744 3,686 23,026 4,103 412 513,142 416,951 Wooda 23,376 1,622 23,093 7,160 812 109,996 108,852 Putnama 20,686 6,348 57,715 6,713 285 571,304 478,747 Senecaa 19,352 7,587 38,744 22,911 680 106,832 99,468 Ottawaa 5,645 1,876 5,643 1,040 200 140,324 123,916 Sanduskya 18,801 3,973 21,959 6,465 566 137,632 110,883 Eriea 8,212 3,604 7,108 2,489 437 71,477 31,808 Ken t b47,883 1,500 113,070 3,934 1,132 452,558 286,199 Essexb 16,162 6,505 27,520 865 1,133 381,461 199,870 a Counties located in Ohio.

b Counties located in Canada.

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

-20 for locations.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-13

SUMMARY

OF COMMERCIAL FISH LANDINGS (PO UNDS) BY STATISTICAL DISTRICT FOR 1971 FOR THE PROVINCE OF ONTARIO a Totals Species S.D. 1 S.D. 2 S.D. 3 S.D. 4 S.D. 5 Pounds Dollars Bowfin - - - 19,640 - 19,640 589 Bullhead - - - 34,259 383 34,642 5,307 Carp 27,052 522 - 23,233 1,793 52,600 3,548 Catfish 38,514 40,949 11,159 9,207 1,207 101,036 24,474 Northern Pike

- - 15 1,642 410 2,067 323 Yellow Perch 3,770,391 6,383,547 2,880,354 360,175 523,144 13,917,611 3,563,039 Suckers 4,536 262 65 5,488 2,192 12,543 1,248 Rock Bass - 284 - 18,439 8,271 26,994 5,987 Freshwater Drum 355 65,946 9,460 8,424 8,788 92,973 2,953 Smelt 12,324 958,481 1,117,242 11,041,802 526 13,130,375 571,461 Sunfish - - - 84,271 - 84,271 23,664 White Bass 3,210 9,274 44,006 23,869 11,668 92,027 22,182 Lake Whitefish 630 21 - 179 2 832 312 Yellow Pickerel 5,300 1,703 6 117 23,049 30,175 15,272 Others 371,153 985,503 16,451 25,900 78,766 1,477,773 14,333 Total Catch (lb) 4,233,465 8,446,492 4,078,758 11,656,645 660,199 29,075,559 Total Value ($)

896,694 1,719,527 852,174 613,199 173,098 4,254,692 a See Figure 2.1

-21 for district areas.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.1-14

SUMMARY

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2-1 REV 16 10/09

2.2 NEARBY

INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES Section 2.2 was prepared circa 1974 at the time of preparation of the original FSAR. It has not generally been updated in the area of nearby industrial, transportation, and military facilities since it represents the area at the time the Construction Permit was issued.

However, changes have been made based on additions/modifications of facilities in the area.

2.2.1 Locations

and Routes 2.2.1.1 Industrial Facilities Industrial (and commercial) facilities within 5 miles of Fermi 2 are listed in Table 2.2-1, along with their products and number of employees (Reference 1).

The Fermi 1 breeder reactor, also on the Fermi site, is not operating and has been permanently shut down. The Fermi 1 plant is located on the site with Fermi 2. The Fermi 1 oil-fired plant has also been decommissioned, and it has been demolished. The 800,000-gal oil storage tank, which supplied the oil-fired boiler, presently supplies the four combustion turbine peakers. There is an additional nuclear power plant site within 30 miles of the Fermi site (Reference 2). This is Toledo Edison Company's Davis-Besse Nuclear Power Station, approximately 26 miles to the south-southeast. There are three extractive industries within 10 miles of the site. The France Stone Company of Monroe, Michigan, is located 9.4 miles southwest of the Fermi site; the maximum quantity of explosives (mainly ammonium nitrate) stored at this quarry is between 25,000 and 35,000 lb (Reference 3). The Halloway Construction Company operates a quarry about 8 miles north of the site. A maximum of about 25,000 lb of explosives is stored at this quarry (Reference 4). Rockwood Stone, Inc., operates a quarry 3 miles north-northeast of the site.

As reported to the NRC in July 1986, the maximum quantity of explosives located at this quarry is between 50,000 and 80,000 lb. The Monroe Branch of the Austin Powder Company maintains a maximum storage of approximately 25,000 lb of dynamite at a site 6.7 miles west-southwest of the Fermi site. These explosives are used for agriculture and for highway construction, as well as for quarrying activities (Reference 5).

The Frenchtown Township water treatment facility is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. There are no explosives stored at this facility. The facility has a 1,000 gallon underground fuel oil storage tank for an onsite emergency generator. (Reference 5a)

.2.2.1.2 Transportation Facilities There are two major roads within 10 miles of the plant, Interstate 75 and U.S. Routes 24/25, shown in Figure 2.1-3. Their closest approach to the plant is 4.1 miles and 5.8 miles north-west of the plant site, respectively, with average 24-hr traffic flows of 27,300 and 9200 vehicles, respectively (Reference 6).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2-2 REV 16 10/09 Within 10 miles of the plant, there are four Class I railroads. The Detroit and Toledo Shore Line Railroad, 4 miles northwest of the site, passes closest to and serves the Fermi site through the use of a single spur track. This company operates a freight service only between Detroit, Michigan, and Toledo, Ohio. At their closest approach to the plant, the other three lines (the Penn Central Railroad, the Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, and the Detroit Toledo and Ironton Railroad) come to within 4 miles northwest, 7 miles west-northwest, and 9 miles northwest, respectively. The railroad yard in Monroe is the nearest yard to the plant. It is operated by the Penn Central Railroad and has a capacity of 230 cars (Reference 7).

Airports within 25 miles of the plant are listed in Table 2.2-2 and indicated in Figure 2.2-1. There are no major airports within 15 miles of the site. Three smaller airports are located about 9 miles from the site (Custer), 5 miles (Carl), and 2 miles (Marshall). The closest airport, Marshall Field, is 2 miles west of the plant. This is a small airfield with two sod runways, the longer being 1962 ft. This runway is oriented about northeast-southwest, approximately 30 degrees offset from the reactor site. Only light aircraft use this field. The weight of the heaviest aircraft using this field is about 3400 lb. The closest major airports are Detroit Metropolitan and Willow Run, which are 19 miles north-northwest and 24 miles northwest of the plant, respectively (Reference 8). Figure 2.2-2 illustrates the approach patterns for Custer, Grosse Ile, and Detroit Metropolitan Airports.

None of these approach patterns lie within 5 miles of the Fermi site.

There are three low level federal airways within 5 miles of the plant: V297, V96, and V10-188. The center line of airway V297 passes directly over the Fermi 2 plant and follows a southeast-northwest path. The center lines of airways V96 and V10-188 are 6.5 miles to the southeast and 4.0 miles north of the plant, respectively (Reference 8). (Airways are 4 miles wide.) The shipping port nearest the plant is the Port of Monroe. Shipping traffic to this port is through an unobstructed channel, approximately 4.5 miles long, east-southeast of the site and extending from the head of navigation of River Raisin to the deep water in Lake Erie. As shown in Figure 2.2-3, the nearest approach of this channel to the Fermi site is approximately 6 miles south of the plant. Shipping traffic to the Port of Monroe is minimal in comparison to the traffic through the Detroit River. In 1964 there were only six commercial vessel trips inbound to the Port of Monroe, as compared to 10,999 upbound and 9693 downbound through the Detroit River (Reference 7). As shown in Figure 2.2-3, the Detroit River navigation channel connects to the West Outer Channel and the East Outer Channel in Lake Erie at a point approximately 7 miles northeast of the plant. The majority of the Detroit River traffic utilizes the East Outer Channel. Traffic on the West Outer Channel has a 5

-mile nearest approach to the plant. Oil and natural gas pipelines in the environs of the Fermi site are shown in Figure 2.2-4 and are described in Subsection 2.2.2.2.

2.2.1.3 Military Facilities There are currently no military facilities within 10 miles of the plant. However, there are two restricted areas in Lake Erie, identified as Zone 1 and Zone 2. These zones are 20 miles and 27 miles from the plant, respectively, and are used as impact areas for small arms, ground artillery, and antiaircraft artillery from Camp Perry and from the test firing range at Erie FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2-3 REV 16 10/09 Industrial Park. Restrictions on weapon horizontal firing range and direction, as well as the nature of the projectiles, preclude a threat to the plant (Reference 9).

2.2.2 Descriptions

2.2.2.1 Industrial Facilities The Fermi 1 power plant and the storage tank supporting the combustion turbine peakers of that plant are described in Subsection 2.2.1.1. The industrial facilities within 5 miles of the plant, including a description of their products and/or services and number of employees, are listed in Table 2.2-1. The Frenchtown Township water treatment facility is a water processing plant for Frenchtown Township. The water treatment plant has the capacity to process 4,000,000 gallons of water per day. The chemicals used for water processing are not a hazard to

Fermi 2 (Reference 5a). 2.2.2.2 Transportation Facilities As shown in Figure 2.2-4, the natural gas distribution lines that pass nearest to the plant are those of the Michigan Gas Utilities Company. Their closest approaches are approximately

1.5 miles

south and 2 miles west of the plant, with pipeline diameter sizes of 6 and 4 in.,

respectively. The natural gas transmission line of the Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Company passes approximately 10 miles northwest of the plant. There are currently no other gas pipelines within 10 miles of the plant.

The oil-products line of the Sinclair Pipeline Company, which passes 5 miles west of the plant, is the closest oil pipeline. Four other oil pipelines pass between 6 and 8 miles northwest of the plant. Of these, three are 6-in. to 12-in. oil products pipelines of the Pure Transportation Company, Sun Pipeline Company, and the Buckeye Pipeline Company; the fourth one is a 6-in. to 22-in.-diameter crude oil pipeline of the Buckeye Pipeline Company.

2.2.3 Evaluations

2.2.3.1 Cooling Water Intake Structure The cooling water intake structure for Fermi 2 is a shoreline structure located adjacent to the existing Fermi 1 intake channel. This channel is protected by two rock jetties that extend into the lake. This intake provides cooling water and makeup water to the 5.5-acre pond, which is part of the closed-loop source of cooling water to operate the plant; the lake level at the mouth of the intake varies from 3 ft to 10 ft, depending on the status of the sandbar that continually forms at the end of the jetties and the prevailing level of Lake Erie. (Refer to Figure 2.4-9.) Navigation by large ships and barges in the Western Basin does not normally approach within approximately 5 miles of the Fermi site. As a result of the very shallow water in the vicinity of the site, no large vessel could be expected to reach the site and damage the intake structure, even if this were attempted.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2-4 REV 16 10/09 In addition, assuming that the intake structure is damaged sufficiently to prevent normal cooling water intake for an extended period of time, the 5.5-acre closed

-cycle circulating water reservoir is of sufficient size to allow limited periods of normal plant operation with sufficient reserve to accomplish normal shutdown. If it were ascertained that the intake structure were to be inoperable for an extended period of time, reduction in load and shutdown would be initiated in a timely manner. In addition to the circulating water reservoir, the ultimate heat sink [residual heat removal (RHR) complex] provides cooling for 7 days in conformance with Regulatory Guide 1.27.

2.2.3.2 Industrial Facilities The industrial facilities within 5 miles of the site (Table 2.2-1) do not present any potential danger to the safe operation of Fermi 2. The Rockwood Stone, Inc., quarry located 3 miles from the site stores a maximum of 80,000 lb of ammonium nitrate fuel oil (ANFO) explosive in the delivery trailers on the quarry property at the ground surface level. ANFO has a TNT equivalence of 1.08. Edison has evaluated the effects on Fermi 2 of the explosion of this maximum inventory of explosives on the quarry site and of the explosion of a maximum shipment of 40,000 lb of the explosive

at the closest approach to Fermi 2 (2 miles). Regulatory Guide 1.91 was used as a basis to evaluate overpressure effects. The U.S. Navy Design Manual Number 7.2, Foundations and Earth Structures, 1982, was used to estimate the ground motion effects due to blasting. It was concluded that the operation of the Rockwood Stone, Inc., quarry and the blast-induced overpressure, hydrostatic pressure, and ground motion effects due to accidental explosions do not pose a hazard to the Fermi 2 plant. The NRC Staff performed an independent evaluation of the blast-generated displacements, velocities, and accelerations of the ground using the empirical relationships in A. J. Hendron's paper titled Engineering of Rock Blasting on Civil Projects. Based on a review of Edison's analysis and on their independent evaluation, th e

NRC Staff concluded that the hazards due to blast-induced overpressure, ground motion, and hydrostatic pressure changes are insignificant with respect to Fermi 2 (Reference 10).

The Frenchtown Township water treatment plant is located approximately 2.5 miles south of the site. No chemicals with a potential to cause an explosion are used at this facility.

Sodium hypochlorite is used for water treatment. This is not considered a hazard to Fermi 2 and it does not impact the chlorine release accident analysis as described in Section 6.4.

2.2.3.3 Offsite Transportation Facilities As described in Subsections 2.2.1.2 and 2.2.2, no roads, railroads, or pipelines cross or pass close to the plant except for the site access road and railroad spur. No conceivable event associated with offsite highways, railroads, and pipelines in the area could be expected to influence normal operation of the plant. The two principal shipping channels (described in Subsection 2.2.1.2) are 5 and 6 miles away from the Fermi 2 site. There is no potential for fire or explosion from any ship in one of these lanes to interfere with normal plant operation.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2-5 REV 16 10/09 A 6-in.-diameter natural gas distribution pipeline passes 1.5 miles south of the plant. Potential explosions cannot endanger safe operation of the plant due to the size and distance of the line. Table 2.2-2 and Figures 2.2-1 and 2.2-2 indicate the nearest airports to the Fermi site and the approach patterns for Custer, Grosse Ile, and Detroit Metropolitan airports.

The annual aircraft flights along the three low level federal airways V297, V96, and Vl0-l88, described in Subsection 2.2.1.2, are provided in Table 2.2-3, along with the aircraft types using these airways and an estimate of the probability of a crash at the Fermi site involving one of these aircraft. Also provided in Table 2.2-3 are estimates of the probabilities of crashes of private and corporate aircraft into the Fermi 2 spent fuel pool. The Detroit Flight Service Center, which handles air traffic along 15 airways, including V297, V96, and V10-188, makes an average of about 34,000 radio contacts per year (References 11, 12, and 13). Between one-third and one-half of all flights along these airways make at least one radio contact with the Detroit Flight Service Center; thus a conservative estimate of the total flights per year along these 15 airways is about 100,000 or about 7000 per airway. About 40 percent of these flights are by commercial aircraft. Aircraft crash data for the years 1970 through 1972 indicate that the probability of a crash during level or near-level flight is about 0.2 per million miles of operation for private and corporate aircraft (References 12, 14, and 15) and about 0.003 per million miles of operation for commercial air carriers (Reference 16). Aircraft crash probabilities provided in Table 2.2-3 are based on crash bands of 13 miles for V96, 8 miles for V10-188, and 2 miles for V297. The target area for the plant was conservatively assumed to be 0.015 square miles (References 17, 18, 19, 20, and 21). The conservatively estimated probability of a commercial aircraft crash into the Fermi 2 plant is 8.9 x 10-8 per year and for a private aircraft 8.9 x 10-6 per year. The target area for the spent fuel pool was taken to be 0.0001 square miles. A conservatively estimated probability of a private aircraft crash into the spent fuel pool is 5.9 x 10-8 per year. The exterior walls of the Category I reactor/auxiliary building were analyzed for the crash of the largest private aircraft capable of using Marshall Field and were found able to withstand such a postulated event.

2.2.3.4 Onsite Storage of Fuels and Explosives The site access rail spurs are not used for the transportation of explosives or fuel oil. Fuel oil is transported by truck to the fuel-oil storage tanks onsite. A winter blend of #2 and #1 fuel oil is required for operation of the 62.2 MWe combustion turbine peakers south of Fermi 1. The 800,000-gal fuel-oil storage tank for the Fermi 1 combustion turbine units is located approximately 1/3 mile south from the plant and safety-related plant structures. The results of any event related to the transportation and storage of fuel oil at this tank would have no effect on the normal operation of Fermi 2 or endanger safety-related plant structures or equipment. The tank is surrounded by a conservatively sized clay-lined dike with a polyethylene geomembrane inner dike liner and is equipped with piping to a foam distribution manifold on the tank. In the event of a fire involving the tank, a foam-generating fire truck can be connected to a nearby hydrant (furnished for the purpose). The foam FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.2-6 REV 16 10/09 discharge lines from the truck can be connected to the tank manifold piping using the provided fire department connection, and foam distributed within the tank. Should the tank rupture, the tank contents will be contained within the dike, and any fire extinguished using conventional fire fighting methodologies as well as the manifold. The fuel storage facility has been designed in accordance with applicable fire codes.

A 20,000 gallon liquid hydrogen storage tank is located at the HWC gas supply facility. The gas supply facility is approximately 1100 feet northwest of the RHR Complex. The tank location has been chosen to ensure that the results of any event related to transportation or storage of hydrogen at this tank would have no effect on the safe operation of Fermi 2 or endanger safety-related plant structures or equipment. The gas supply facility has been designed in accordance with applicable fire codes and the nuclear industry guidelines for permanent HWC installations.

Other onsite fuel storage facilities are identified and evaluated in Subsection 9.5.1 and Appendix 9A. The only storage of explosives in the vicinity of the unit will be in quantities sufficiently small and at such a distance that no postulated accident can endanger the safe operation of the unit.2.2.3.5 Onsite Storage of Toxic Chemicals Sodium hypochlorite and a small quantity of acids are stored onsite. Sulfuric acid for circulating water is transported in accordance with all applicable regulations. Safety measures are taken near handling and storage facilities. Any spills during transfer operations will soak into the ground and be neutralized or will drain to a chemical sump for neutralization. Sodium hypochlorite used to treat the circulating water is stored at the circulating water pumphouse in a tank located within a nominal 150 percent tank capacity retention dike and pad. Sodium hypochlorite used to treat the GSW System is stored at the GSW pumphouse in a tank located within a nominal 150 percent tank capacity retention dike and pad.

2.2.3.6 Cooling Tower Collapse The cooling towers are hyperbolic in design and any postulated failure of this tower would cause it to collapse inwardly. This failure would in no way endanger the safe shutdown of the unit.

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.2 NEARBY

INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES REFERENCES 2.2-7 REV 16 10/09

1. Monroe County Manufacturers Directory, Monroe County Library System and the Greater Monroe Chamber of Commerce, Monroe, Michigan.
2. Electricity from Nuclear Power, Central Station Nuclear Power Plants in the U.S., Atomic Industrial Forum, Inc.
3. G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and Mr. Elson, Plant Supervisor, France Stone Company, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 28, 1973.
4. G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and W. Jarvi, Research and Development, Dow Chemical Company, Telephone Conversation, May 1, 1974.
5. G. Edgley, NUS Corporation, and G. Dridalt, Austin Powder Company, Monroe, Michigan, Telephone Conversation, February 28, 1973. 5a. Letter from M. P. Faeth, P.E., McNamee, Porter & Seeley, Inc., to E. F. Madsen, Detroit Edison,

Subject:

Frenchtown Charter Township WTP, dated April 25, 1994.

6. 1971 Average 24 Hour Traffic Flow Map, Report No. 223, Michigan Department of State Highways.
7. Inventory of Airports, Harbors, Railroads, Pipelines, and Truck Terminals; Detroit Regional Transportation and Land Use Study, January 1968.
8. Sectional Aeronautical Chart (Scale 1:500,000) - Detroit - 4th Edition; U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, Washington, D.C., May 25, 1972.
9. Preliminary Safety Analysis Report for the Davis

-Besse Nuclear Power Station, Appendix 2A, pp. 2A-1 through 2A-14 and Amendment No. 6, pp. 2A-13 through 2A-15, Docket No. 50-346, The Toledo Edison Company and Cleveland Electric Illuminating Company.

10. Letter from J. J. Stefano, NRC, to B. R. Sylvia, Detroit Edison,

Subject:

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

11. Telephone conversations with G. Brainerd, Supervisor, Detroit Center, Flight Service Station, FAA, 11499 Conner Avenue, Detroit, Michigan 482l3. February 22 to February 28, 1975.
12. FAA Statistical Handbook of Aviation, Department of Transportation, 1972 Edition (Stock Number 5007-0l88).
13. Detroit Sectional Aeronautical Chart, Lambert Conformal Projection Standard Parallels 4120' and 4540', 9th Edition, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Washington, D.C.
14. K. A. Solomon, et al., Airplane Crash Risk to Ground Population, UCLA-ENG 7424, March l974.

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.2 NEARBY

INDUSTRIAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND MILITARY FACILITIES REFERENCES 2.2-8 REV 16 10/09

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.2-1 CompanyINDUSTRIAL FACILITIES WITHIN 5 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE aProducts and/or Services Number of Employees B&M Industry, Inc.

Metal stamping 50 Lisowski Brothers, Inc. Plating equipment and supplies 9 Marshall (Olen) Hardware and Airport Hardware, paint, pumps; plumbing and electrical supplies; airport

-flight instruction, tie down, gas and oil 2 Neidermeier Oil Company Distribution of Union 76 fuel oil 4 Newport State Bank General banking services 16 Ohio China Company Retail and wholesale china 28 Rockwood Stone, Inc. Limestone quarry 30 Frenchtown Township Water Treatment Plant Potable water 4

a All of these facilities, except Rockwood Stone, Inc., are in Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan. Rockwood Stone is in Berlin Township, Monroe County, Michigan.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.2-2 Airport AIRPORTS WITHIN 25 MILES OF THE FERMI SITE Distance (miles) and Direction From Site Number and Type of Aircraft Based at the Airport Largest Type of Aircraft Likely to Land at Airport Runway Direction/and Length (ft)

Runway Composition Hours Attended Average Weekly Flight Operations Marshall 2 W 6 single-engine Piper Aztec 50°-230°/1962 Sod 0800-dusk 10 Carl 6 NNW 21 single-engine Cessna 310 180°-360°/2400 90°-270°/2300 Turf 0800-dusk 10 Wickenheiser 7 NW 3 single-engine Cessna 172 90°-270°/1900 80°-360°/2600 Turf - 2 Custer 9 W 53 single-engine 3 multi-engine DC-3 20°-200°/3500 Blacktop 0800-2000 150 Grosse Ile 11 NNE 142 single

-engine 6 multi-engine 2 helicopters Convair 440 30°-210°/4980 170°-350°/5480 Blacktop Blacktop 0700-2400 1000 Detroit Metro 19 NNW 90 single-engine 60 multi-engine Boeing 747 30°L-210°R/ 10500 30°L-210°L/ 8500 90°-270°/ 8700 150°-330°/ 4331 Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete 24hrs 5544 Bielec 21 WNW Information not available 180°-3600°/ 1900 50°-1750°/ 1750 Turf Turf - - Frankman Ranchero 21 NW 3 single-engine Piper-Apache 60°-240°/ 1930 90°-270°/ 1340 Turf Turf - 1 2 Larsen 21 NW 48 single-engine Twin Beach 45 180°-360°/ 1752 Turf Not Given 300 Lada 22 W 1 single-engine Piper Navajo 180°-3600°/2600 Sod Daylight 1 Willow Run 24 NW 69 single-engine 105 multi-engine DC-8 90°L-270°R/ 7294 90°R-270°L/ 7294 50°L-230°R/ 6656 50 OL-230 OL/ 7526 140°-320°/ 6911 Concrete-asphalt Concrete Concrete-asphalt Concrete-asphalt 24hrs 3800 Chippewa 25 S Information not available - 90°-270°/ 2600 Turf None - Gradolph 25 W 10 single-engine 1 multi-engine - 90°-270°/ 2600 Turf Jan-Dec/ Mon-Sat 0800-1800 18 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.2-3 Airway AIRCRAFT CRASH PROBABILITY FOR THE FERMI SITE Aircraft Type aEstimated Flights Per Year Target Estimated Crash Probability Per Year V297 U.S. Air Carrier 2800 Plant 6.3 x 10-8 General Aviation 4200 Plant 6.3 x 10-6 General Aviation 4200 Spent Fuel Pool 4.2 x 10-8 V96 U.S. Air Carrier 2800 Plant 9.7 x 10-9 General Aviation 4200 Plant 9.7 x 10-7 General Aviation 4200 Spent Fuel Pool 6.5 x 10-9 V10-188 U.S. Air Carrier 2800 Plant 1.6 x 10-8 General Aviation 4200 Plant 1.6 x 10-6 General Aviation 4200 Spent Fuel Pool 1.1 x 10-8 a U.S. Air Carrier flights include such planes as the C-747, B-707, B-720, B-727, DC-8, DC-9, DC-10, L-1011, and others. General Aviation includes flights by U.S. Civil Aircraft owned and operated by persons, corporations, etc., other than those engaged in air carrier operations authorized by a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-1 REV 1 8 10/1 2 2.3 METEOROLOGY

2.3.1. Regional

Climatology 2.3.1.1. Data Sources The regional climatology pertinent to the Fermi site was determined from data acquired by the National Weather Service and summarized by the Environmental Data Service. The 1971 through 1974 local climatological data were obtained for the Detroit Metropolitan Airport (Reference 1), Detroit City Airport (Reference 2), and for Toledo, Ohio (Reference 3). The climatological summary was obtained for the cities of Monroe (Reference 4) and Willis (Reference 5), Michigan. These data provided sufficient information to determine the climatological characteristics of the area surrounding the Fermi site.

Extreme wind data were obtained from studies by Thom (Reference 6). Severe storm and tornado data were obtained from monthly storm data (Reference 7), climatological data national summary (Reference 8), the tornadoes of western Canada (Reference 9), and tornado probabilities (Reference 10). The data for meteorological extremes were obtained for Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Detroit City Airport, and for Toledo Express Airport from the local climatological data for each station. Extremes for Monroe and Willis, Michigan, were obtained from the climatological summary for each station.

Monthly storm data were used to determine the number of occurrences of hailstorms and ice storms. Climatological data for restrictive dilution conditions were obtained from a variety of sources concerned with stagnating conditions in the United States (References 11 and 12).

2.3.1.2. General Climate The Fermi site is located in the southeast lower climatic district of Michigan on the western shore of Lake Erie. The lake smooths out most climatic extremes, with the most pronounced lake effect occurring in the coldest part of the winter when there is an excess of cloudiness and very little sunshine. Prevailing winds are from the western sectors in winter. Periods of easterly winds (off Lake Erie) and local lake breezes modify temperatures during the summer months. The climate in the area alternates between semi-marine and continenta l (Reference 4).

The predominant wind in the area is from the southwest, averaging approximately 10 mph (Reference 1). The average afternoon (1:00 p.m.) relative humidity for the Fermi site area is 58 percent, and varies from 52 percent in May to 71 percent in December (Reference 1). The highest temperature recorded in the area was 105F (Reference 2) and the lowest was -19 F (References 1 through 5). Precipitation is well distributed throughout the year. The Fermi site area receives an average of 31.15 in. of precipitation per year, with 56 percent occurring between the months of May and October. Minimum amounts of precipitation generally occur during the winter months (December, January, and February) and average approximately 2.0 in. per month. Maximum FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-2 REV 1 8 10/1 2 amounts of precipitation generally occur during the summer months (June, July, and August) and average approximately 3.0 in. per month (References 1 through 3). The mean annual snowfall in the area is 33.7 in. (References 1 through 5).

2.3.1.3. Severe Weather 2.3.1.3.1.

Extreme Winds According to a compilation by Thom (Reference 6) for characterizing extreme winds, the extreme mile wind speed at 30 ft above the ground, which is predicted to occur once in 100 years, is approximately 90 mph. The approximate values for other recurrence intervals are listed in Table 2.3-1, with the extrapolated value of 117 mph for the 1000-year recurrence interval (Reference 6). The extreme mile wind speed is defined as being the 1

-mile passage of wind with the highest speed for the day. Based on the gustiness factor of 1.3, the highest instantaneous gust expected in 100 years is 117 mph. The highest mile wind recorded at Detroit City Airport, based on the 1934 through 1965 period of record, was 77 mph from the northwest (Reference 2). Based on the 1956 through 1972 period of record, the highest mile wind recorded at Toledo, Ohio, was a 72-mph wind from the southwest (Reference 3). The Category I structures of Fermi 2 are designed to withstand a 90 mph fastest mile sustained wind velocity, 30 ft above ground level. This wind velocity has a 100-year recurrence interval.

The relationships to determine the vertical velocity distribution of the wind are obtained from Page 1139 of ASCE Paper No. 3269 for coastal areas and are as follows: for V30 60 mph = 30. for V30 > 60 mph = 30 where V30 = basic wind velocity (mph) at a height 30 ft above ground level (grade) x = factor which varies from 0.3 when V30 = 60 mph to 0.143 when V30= 130 mph (Reference 3) V z = wind velocity (mph) at a height (z) above grade Z = distance above grade in ft Thus, at heights between 100 and 150 ft above grade, the height of the upper portion of the reactor building, the wind velocity is calculated to be 123.5 mph. Gust factors have also been determined by the methods given on pages 1124 through 1198 in ASCE Paper No.

3269. For all Category I structures, the gust factor varies linearly from 1.1 at grade level to 1.0 at 400 ft. However, a gust factor of 1.1 was used for the full height of both the reactor/auxiliary building and the residual heat removal complex except for the blow-away siding design during the design tornado, where a factor of 1.0 was used.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-3 REV 1 8 10/1 2 2.3.1.3.2.

Tornadoes 2.3.1.3.2.1. Frequency During the period January 1951 through December 1974, a total of 51 tornadoes were reported within a 50-mile radius of the Fermi site (References 8 and 9). These 51 tornadoes occurred within the United States. This is an average of two tornadoes per year within this radius. There were no tornadoes reported within 50 miles of the site in Canada for the period 1951 through 1960 (Reference 9). Canadian tornado data were not available for the period 1961 to 1974. There was one tornado reported at Tecumseh, Ontario, on August 1, 1973.

This tornado was not included in this analysis. According to the statistical methods proposed by Thom (Reference 10), the probability of a tornado striking a point within a given area may be estimated as follows:

= where P = mean probability per year

= geometric mean tornado path area

= mean number of tornadoes per year A = area of concern For the region surrounding the Fermi site, the geometric mean path length computed was approximately 2.15 miles, and the geometric mean path width computed was approximately 75 yd (References 7 and 10), yielding a mean path area () of 0.092 square mile, based on the January 1951 through December 1974 period of record. The use of a 50-mile radius to compute A (excluding the water area of Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie and the land area in

Canada) and a value of 2.125 for yields a tornado probability of 4.075 x 10-5 per year, or a recurrence interval of 24,500 years. It should be noted that the June 8, 1953, tornado in northern Ohio had a reported path length of 100 miles and a path width of 440 to 1760 yd. These data were not used in the computation of , as recommended by Thom (Reference 10), who states that tornadoes with reported paths longer than 100 miles and paths wider than 1000 yd are considered doubtful observations. However, including this tornado, this yields a probability of 4.7 x 10-5, or a recurrence interval of 21,200 years. During the period of record studied, three tornadoes occurred within 5.5 miles of the Fermi site, but it is difficult to determine which occurred closest to the site. These were (1) on June 28, 1973, a tornado was observed 3 miles south of Estral Beach; no data on path length or width were given; (2) on June 12, 1973, a tornado occurred 3 miles west of South Rockwood with a path length of 0.1 mile and width of 40 yd; and (3) another nearby tornado occurred on June 11, 1968, at Monroe, Michigan. The path length reported was "short" and no path width was given. No persons were reported killed or injured, and the damage was estimated at from $500 to $5000 (References 7 and 8).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-4 REV 1 8 10/1 2 Not included in the above tornado discussion were water spouts and funnel clouds sighted in the area that did not touch the ground. Only one water spout was sighted within 50 miles of the site during the period 1965 through 1974. This occurred on August 1, 1965, 13 miles southeast of Mt. Clemens; there was no damage reported.

2.3.1.3.2.2. Parameters Category I structures housing the systems required for a safe shutdown of the plant in the event of a tornado are designed to withstand the effects of a tornado by providing either sufficiently strong structures or appropriate venting. The design parameters of the Fermi 2 design-basis tornado are

a. A rotational wind velocity of 300 mph b. A translational wind velocity of 60 mph
c. An external pressure drop of 3 psi at the rate of 1 psi/sec.2.3.1.3.3.

Precipitation Extremes Tables 2.3-2 through 2.3-6 list extremes of precipitation and other meteorological parameters for several stations that surround the Fermi site. The maximum amount of precipitation recorded for a 24-hr period was 4.39 in. at Toledo, Ohio, in July 1969. The maximum monthly snowfall measured in the region was 28.5 in. at Monroe, Michigan, in March 1954 (Reference 1 through Reference 5). A December 1 and 2, 1974, snowstorm deposited 19.3 in. of snow at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport. The 100-year recurrence snowpack and 100-year recurrence daily snowfall were computed using data from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport for the years 1971-1974 inclusive (see Figures 2.3-1 and 2.3-2). Each of these had the data ranked according to the amount and number of occurrences in the 4-year period. From these ranked amounts, a cumulative distribution table was generated. This cumulative percentage was graphed as a function of amount and the curve visually extrapolated to the value occurring in 100 years. Snowpack Number of Occurrences Maximum Snowpack (in.) Cumulative Number of Occurrences Cumulative Percentage 10 Trace 36 100.00 8 1 21 72.22 3 2 18 50.00 5 3 15 41.67 3 4 10 27.78 1 5 7 19.41 2 7 6 16.67 1 8 4 11.11 1 9 3 8.33 2 11 2 5.56 FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-5 REV 1 8 10/1 2 The average number of observations per year is nine for this calculation, so that 100 years would provide 900 samples. The 100-year recurrence percentage would therefore be 0.11 percent. Referring to the graph of the cumulative frequency of snowpack versus amount, the extrapolated 100-year recurrence value is 27.8 in. Daily Snowfall Number of Occurrences Maximum Daily Snowfall (in.)

Cumulative Number of Occurrences Cumulative Percentage 4 Trace 28 100.00 2 0.1 24 85.71 1 0.5 22 78.57 1 0.6 21 75.00 2 1.0 20 71.43 1 1.3 18 64.29 1 1.5 17 60.71 1 1.6 15 57.14 1 1.7 15 53.14 1 2.5 14 50.00 2 2.7 13 46.43 1 2.8 11 39.29 1 2.9 10 35.71 1 3.1 9 32.14 1 3.2 8 28.57 1 3.7 7 25.00 1 3.8 6 21.43 1 4.7 5 17.86 1 5.2 4 14.29 1 8.4 3 10.71 1 8.7 2 7.14 1 19.3 1 3.75 The average number of observations per year is seven for this calculation, so that 100 years would provide 700 samples. The 100-year recurrence percentage would therefore be 0.15 percent. Referring to the graph of the cumulative frequency of maximum daily snowfall versus amount, the extrapolated 100-year recurrence value is 28.2 in.

2.3.1.3.4.

Hailstorms A review of hailstorm data for the period of 1962 through 1974 is reported in storm data for Monroe County and the immediately surrounding counties of Lenawee, Washtenaw, Wayne, Lucas (Ohio), and Ottawa (Ohio). This review indicates that there were 93 days with FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-6 REV 1 8 10/1 2 hailstorms in this area. Generally, these hailstorms occurred with scattered thunderstorms which covered a wide area (i.e., northern Ohio or southern Michigan). One of the most severe storms in the area occurred on July 19, 1967, in Wayne and Monroe Counties.

Hailstones varying in size from "small peas to larger than golf balls" were reported to have accumulated to depths of 6 to 7 in. in spots. Damage to both crops and property ranged from

$5000 to $50,000 (Reference 7).

2.3.1.3.5.

Ice Storms A study of ice storm data for the 1962 through 1974 period for Monroe County and the immediately surrounding counties indicates that there were 26 storms in this region. The storms were rarely limited to a small area, but were widespread over the state. The greatest accumulation of ice in the region came from the January 26 and 27, 1967, storm, which deposited up to 3 in. of ice in northern Ohio (Reference 7).

2.3.1.3.6.

Thunderstorms Thunderstorms occur on an average of 35 days per year, approximately 80 percent occurring in the months of June, July, and August (References 1 through 3). Generally, these

thunderstorms encompass a large area (on the order of several hundred square kilometers each) and are associated with strong winds, intense precipitation for short time intervals, and lightning. Lightning incidence is estimated at about 10 flashes per year per square kilometer.

Each thunderstorm produces an average of about 120 independent flashes to ground (an average of one every 20 sec. for an interval of about 40 minutes). Each thunderstorm (isolated) encompasses an area of about 400 km 2 (20 km on a side). With 35 days per year associated with thunderstorms, these estimates give x 120 =10 per year. 2.3.1.3.7.

Restrictive Dilution Conditions The frequency of occurrence of low

-level inversions or isothermal layers based at or below a 500-ft elevation in the site region is approximately 28 percent of the total hours on an annual basis, according to Hosler (Reference 11), who takes into account lake and ocean effects on inversion frequencies. Seasonally, the greatest frequencies of inversions based on percent of total hours are 30 percent during the summer and fall. The inversion frequencies are 25 percent in the spring and 20 percent in the winter. The majority of these inversions are nocturnal in nature. The mean mixing depth is another restriction to atmospheric dilution. The mixing depth is the thickness of the atmospheric layer, measured from the surface upward, in which convective overturning is taking place, caused by the daytime heating at the surface. The mixing depth is usually at its shallowest during the early morning hours, just after sunrise, when the nocturnal inversion is being modified by solar heating at the surface. The mixing depth is at its greatest during the later part of the afternoon, 3:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m., when the maximum surface temperature of the day is reached. The monthly mean daily mixing depths, based on Flint, Michigan, upper air data for the period January 1960 through December FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-7 REV 1 8 10/1 2 1964, are presented in Table 2.3-7 (Reference 12). Shallow mixing depths have a greater frequency of occurrence during the fall and winter months. Periods of high air pollution potential are usually related to a stagnating anticyclone, with the average wind speed less than or equal to 9.0 mph (4.0 m/sec), no precipitation, and a mixing depth of less than 1600 ft (Reference 14). The greatest air pollution potential in the site region occurs during the months of August, September, and October, when the tendency is greatest for a quasi-stationary anticyclone to develop in the region (Reference 15). According to Korshover (Reference 15), there were approximately 19 anticyclone stagnation cases, each 4 days or more, reported in the site region during the period 1936-1967.

2.3.1.3.8.

Maximum Roof Loadings The following data itemize the maximum snow and ice load in inches of water that the roofs of safety-related structures are capable of withstanding during plant operation. The operating- basis conditions are based on the service conditions allowable stresses or strengths. The design-basis conditions are based on the strength of the structure at yield stresses with a load factor of 1.0. Safety-Related Structure Operating-Basis Snow and Ic e Load (psf)

Water Equivalent (in.)

Design-Basis Snow and Ice Load (psf)

Water Equivalent (in.)

Reactor / auxiliary building 30 5.8 87 16.7 RHR Complex 70 13.5 276 53.0* ________________________

  • This depth exceeds parapet height

2.3.2. Local

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

Offsite wind, stability, precipitation, temperature, relative humidity, and fog data were based on meteorological observations from Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Toledo Express Airport, both first-order National Weather Service stations (References 1 and 3). Additional temperature and precipitation data were obtained from National Weather Service cooperative stations at Monroe and Willis, Michigan (References 4 and 5). The 1956 to 1959 period site wind, stability, and precipitation data were obtained and summarized by the University of Michigan from the Fermi 1 100-ft meteorological tower (Subsection 2.3.3.1.1) (References 17 and 18). Additional onsite data from a low-level 33-ft tower at Langton Road are presented in this section, based on data obtained and reduced by the University of Michigan for the period January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972. These data include ambient FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-8 REV 1 8 10/1 2 temperature and relative humidity; however, the low-level wind data are only briefly discussed because of unfavorable (42 percent) data recovery.

Wind stability and fog data summaries for Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Toledo Express Airport were also obtained.

2.3.2.2. Normal and Extreme Values of Local Meteorological Parameters The distribution of wind direction and speed is an important factor when considering transport conditions relevant to site diffusion climatology. The monthly, seasonal, and annual distributions of wind direction and speed from the 60-m tower at the Fermi site (June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975) are presented in Figures 2.3-3 through 2.3-19. For comparative purposes, data from Detroit City Airport (81-ft level, 1951 to 1960) and Toledo Express Airport (20-ft level, 1950 to 1955) are presented in Figures 2.3-20 through 2.3-31; each month presented represents averaged data for the years reported. These data are summarized and presented in annual wind roses in Figure 2.3-32. Average wind directions for all locations show a predominance of winds from the southwest through west-southwest.

Limited site data from the Langton Road Tower (33-ft level) for the January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, period indicate a predominance of winds from the south through west-southwest. Atmospheric dilution is directly proportional to the wind speed, with other factors remaining constant. Table 2.3-8 presents the average wind speeds and frequencies of calms for the Fermi site, the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and the Toledo Express Airport. A calm is defined as a wind speed of <1.0 mph for the Fermi site 60-m and 150-m tower data and <1.2 mph for data recorded at National Weather Service stations and the Fermi site 100

-ft tower. The threshold of the anemometer was used as the determining value of calm conditions. The highest average speed of the four stations, summarized in Table 2.3-8, is at the Fermi site at the 60-m level. This can be attributed to the higher exposure height of the wind sensors at the Fermi site and the shoreline location of the site, since wind speeds during onshore wind flows may be greater, and a lake breeze situation can develop during periods when light winds or calms are recorded at inland meteorological stations. Variations in speed can also be attributed to differences in instrumentation, data reduction techniques, and periods of record.2.3.2.2.1.

Wind Direction Persistence Wind direction persistence is important when considering potential effects from a contaminant release. Wind direction persistence is defined as a continuous flow from a given direction or range of directions. Figure 2.3-33 shows the probability of occurrence of a 22-1/2 sector wind flow persistence as a function of duration, based on data from the 60-m tower (June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975) and offsite data from the Detroit Metropolitan Airport (1959 to 1962 data period) and the Toledo Express Airport (1959 to 1963 data period). The wind persistence summary from onsite data (60-m tower) is shown in Table 2.3-9 in increments of 1 hr. Based on the onsite observation time (12 months), the 10-m level data indicate a 5 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence of about 7 hr and a 1 percent probability of 11-hr duration. At the 60-m level, these same percentages are 7 hr and 13 hr, respectively.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-9 REV 1 8 10/1 2 The 5 and 1 percent probabilities of continuous wind direction persistences at the 60-m level were greater than those observed at the 10-m level, as should be expected. The Detroit Metropolitan Airport data at 58 ft indicate a 5 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence periods greater than 9 hr and a 1 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence periods greater than 15.5 hr. The Toledo Express Airport data at 20 ft indicate a 5 percent probability of continuous wind direction persistence for periods greater than about 16 hr. The maximum wind persistence at the Fermi site within a 22-1/2 sector, recorded on the 60-m tower during the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period, was one period lasting for 32 hr at the 10-m level from the south, associated with an average speed of 21 mph. The maximum wind persistence at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport within a 22-1/2 sector, recorded during the 1959 to 1963 period, was a 37-hr wind from the east-southeast, associated with an average speed of 17 mph. The maximum wind persistence at the Toledo Express Airport within a 22-1/2 sector, recorded during the 1959 to 1963 period, was a 37-hr wind from the east-northeast associated with an average wind speed of 17.0 mph. Episodes of maximum wind persistence within a 22-1/2 sector for the Fermi site 10

-m level (60

-m tower) data, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, and the Toledo Express Airport are presented in Figure 2.3-34.

2.3.2.2.2.

Atmospheric Stability Stability is a measure of the degree of atmospheric turbulence. A low degree of wind turbulence can be expected for stable conditions, resulting in relatively suppressed diffusion conditions. Conversely, during periods of instability, a high degree of wind turbulence can be associated with relatively enhanced diffusion conditions. The seasonal and annual frequencies of stability indices for the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Toledo Express Airport, and the Fermi site 60-m tower are presented in Tables 2.3-10 and 2.3-11. The stability data for the two airports were classified according to the Pasquill-Turner approach (Reference 19). This method is an indirect approach and involves the utilization of factors such as cloud cover, solar insulation, time of day, and wind speed to classify data that are generally available at National Weather Service observation stations.

The onsite stability data were determined for the 60-m tower for the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period. The stabilities were classified from T(60 m-10 m) data, using the procedure outlined in Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Reference 16). Examination of Tables 2.3-10 and 2.3-11 indicates the predominance of neutral conditions. The frequency of stable (E, F, and G) conditions for both Detroit Metropolitan Airport and Toledo Express Airport is similar to the frequency of inversions based on Fermi site T(100 ft-25 ft) data from the 100-ft tower on a seasonal and annual basis (Table 2.3-12). The onsite data from the 60-m tower show a larger spread in the stability data.

Onsite stability data for the 1956 to 1959 period were compiled on a seasonal and annual basis and summarized in reports by the University of Michigan (References 17 and 18). The data were based on a T(100 ft-25 ft) and were obtained from the 100-ft tower described in Subsection 2.3.3.1. The data were classified into the following three groups:

a. Strong vertical temperature gradients (T(100 ft-25 ft) < 0.98C/100 m or -5.4F/1000 ft)

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-10 REV 1 8 10/1 2 b. Weak vertical temperature gradients (T(100 ft-25 ft) >0.98C/100 m or 5.4F/1000 ft, and 0) c. Inversions (temperature increases with height).

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

2.3.2.2.3.

Distribution and Frequency of Precipitation Distribution of precipitation as a function of wind direction is presented in Table 2.3-17 fo r the Fermi site, using data from 1956-1959 from the 100-ft tower and from June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, from the 60-m tower. The 100-ft tower data show that the highest frequency of precipitation occurs when associated with winds from the southwest through west-northwest. The average wind speeds (100-ft level) during precipitation are 11.0 mph for all FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-11 REV 1 8 10/1 2 directions. The frequency of precipitation during calm conditions is 0.2 percent of the total hours of precipitation (Reference 18). The 60-m tower data show a larger spread, which may be due to the smaller sample size (12 months). A wind rose showing the distribution of wind speed versus wind direction with respect to precipitation only is presented in Figure 2.3-36.

2.3.2.2.4.

Natural Fog Occurrences Fog is essentially a cloud that has developed on the ground. Therefore, the processes leading to fog formation are similar to those for cloud formation. In general, the conditions that promote water-vapor condensation in ground-level air may lead to fog conditions. Aside from the interrelated thermodynamics of the ambient air and the ground surface, a number of other factors may influence the formation of fog. These factors include the size, character, and number of condensation nuclei; the extent of cloud cover; the wind speed and direction; the time of day; and the atmospheric turbulence. The surface air may generally be treated as a mixture of dry air and water vapor. The most frequent and effective cause of fog is the cooling of humid surface air to a point where vapor condensation occurs. The condensation generally takes place on larger and more active condensation nuclei, and may occur somewhat before the dewpoint temperature (saturation) is reached. However, as long as the moisture content is sufficiently below the saturation value, condensation does not occur and fog conditions do not exist. According to Byers, there are three types of fog which predominate in the Great Lakes area (Reference 20). Spring and early summer conditions (warm atmosphere and cold lake) contribute to the formation of land and lake breeze fogs. In the fall, advection-radiation fogs form over the land. During the fall and winter, steam fogs form over the lakes. In the formation of a land and lake breeze fog, warm moist air from the land is transported out over the cold lake and, if the winds are light, a dense surface fog may develop over the lake. The fog may then be carried out over the land by a lake breeze during the day and may recede at night during a land breeze flow. These fogs rarely penetrate very far inland (i.e., 2 or 3 miles).

An advection-radiation fog is formed by nighttime radiational cooling of air of high humidity that has been advected inland from the lake during the day. This advection of lake air with a high relative humidity makes possible the formation of fog with normal nocturnal cooling. Steam fog will form when cold air with a low vapor pressure passes over warm water. Steam fog is generally shallow in depth (i.e., 50 ft to 100 ft thick). According to Rondy, the western end of Lake Erie will have 70 percent to 90 percent ice coverage out to 35 miles by January 15 during a normal winter. The extreme western shoreline, where the Fermi site is located, will have 100 percent coverage out to 5 miles from the shore by January 15 (Reference 21). Therefore, steam fog in the Fermi site area will occur mostly during the fall.

Fog occurs predominantly during the early morning hours when the moisture-bearing air is cooled to the lowest temperature and the vapor saturation of the air is most closely approached. This effect is illustrated in Figure 2.3-37 where the probability of fog occurrence at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport, for the December 1, 1958, to September 1, 1962, period, is plotted versus the hour of the day for the annual average. Over the year, the peak frequency of fog occurrence is about 32.1 percent of the total hours of fog and occurs FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-12 REV 1 8 10/1 2 between 5:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m. There is a notably higher frequency of fog between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. Fog (other than frontal fog) is normally expected to dissipate during the late morning hours, particularly on clear, sunny days. However, cloud cover can extend the period of fog well into the daytime hours. The monthly percentage occurrences of fog based on Detroit Metropolitan Airport data are presented in Figure 2.3-38. As can be seen in Figure 2.3-38, the monthly distribution of fog at the Detroit Metropolitan Airport does not show the distribution of fog for a Great Lakes area station predicted by Byers. Great Lakes area fogs have peak occurrences in the spring, early summer, and fall. The Detroit Metropolitan Airport shows peaks in the fall and winter.

The major cause of the difference between occurrences observed at the Detroit Metropolita n

Airport and those predicted by Byers is the location of the airport with respect to Lake Erie.

Detroit Metropolitan Airport is located approximately 20 miles from Lake Erie. Because of this, lake- land breeze-type fogs, which rarely penetrate more than 2 to 3 miles inland, will not be evident at the airport. Because the Toledo Express Airport is 20 miles from Lake Erie, these types of fogs will not be evident there either. However, in a location such as the Fermi site, the lake will have a greater effect on natural fog occurrences, and the types and frequencies of fog should be the same as outlined by Byers. The presence of fog onsite (at the shoreline) is associated with, for the most part, calm wind conditions. The ability of the natural draft cooling tower plume to rise to considerable heights is a significant factor in reducing the potential of adverse ground-level environmental effects. For example, under calm wind conditions, a typical plume penetration height for the Fermi 2 cooling towers is about 1000 ft above the top of the towers. In addition, the major roadways in the vicinity of the site are Interstate 75 and U.S. 24/25, whose closest approaches are 5.1 and 5.8 miles to the northwest, respectively. Dixie Highway, Pointe Au x

Peaux Road, and Toll Road are closer, but are not considered major highways (Reference 22).2.3.2.2.5.

Meteorological Parameters The extremes and means of meteorological parameters have been tabulated in Tables 2.3-2 through 2.3-6 for the Detroit City Airport, Detroit Metropolitan Airport, Toledo Express Airport, and Monroe and Willis, Michigan. Table 2.3-18 presents the average temperature and relative humidity by month during the January 1, 1972, through December 31, 1972, period at the Fermi site (Langton Road Tower), the Detroit City Airport, and the Toledo Express Airport, for comparative purposes.

However, the average relative humidity values by month for Fermi site data seem somewhat high and may, to some extent, be attributed to instrumentation and calibration inaccuracies. (Prevailing winds for the period were from the south through west-southwest.) Figures 2.3-39 and 2.3-40 show the means of the daily averages and extremes of ambient air temperature and relative humidity, respectively. Relative humidity data were derived from ambient air temperature and dewpoint temperature data collected at the 10-m level of the 60-m tower from June 1, 1974, through May 31, 1975. A comparison of monthly average temperatures and monthly high and low temperatures between the Fermi site data and National Weather Service data nearby, for the June 1, 1974, through May 31, 1975, period, is shown in Table 2.3-19.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-13 REV 1 8 10/1 2 2.3.2.3. Potential Influence of the Plant and the Facilities on Local Meteorology The physical structures of the plant, especially the large natural draft cooling towers, are expected to locally increase atmospheric turbulence. There is also a potential for somewhat decreased low

-level wind speeds in the immediate vicinity of the physical structures of the plant due to a wind-shielding effect. A study has shown that a cooling tower has an extended downwind wake upward to at least one and one-half times the tower height and downwind approximately two to three times the tower diameter. This will occur for wind speeds greater than 5 to 8 mph. Analysis has shown that any increase in precipitation due to the natural draft system will be minimal. Maximum precipitation from drift is predicted to occur at a distance of 3 km (1.8 miles) both northeast and west-southwest of the cooling towers at a total rate of approximately 0.008 in. annually. The increase in surface relative humidity is insignificant. The greatest relative humidity increase (nearly 21 percent at 1500 m downwind) will occur on winter mornings at an approximate height of 470 m (1542 ft). This 21 percent increase is ample to cause a visible plume from the natural draft cooling tower to extend downwind approximately 1000 m during the winter. There will be no significant fogging problems offsite on an annual basis. The offsite ground-level visibility reduction (to <1000 m) is predicted to occur only about 1 hr per year (Reference 22). The cited cooling tower studies were conducted specifically for the Fermi 2 cooling towers by the NUS Corporation. The parameters used and the results of these studies are presented in the Fermi 2 Environmental Report in Section 5.1. The models used are described in Section 6.1 and were filed with the NRC on August 30, 1974, as the reports listed below as supporting documents to Docket Nos. 50-500 and 50-501. a. Langrangian Vapor Plume Model - Version 3 (LVPM-3), NUS-TM-S-184 b. FOG Model Description, NUS-TM-S-185 c. ICE Model Description, NUS-TM-S-186.2.3.2.4. Topographic Description 2.3.2.4.1.

General Description The terrain in the region of the Fermi site is characterized by flat plains, with the relief varying from 0 to 100 ft. More than 80 percent of the area is gently sloping. However, the actual site area is relatively flat and characterized by marshlands. Figures 2.3-41 and 2.3-42 are topographic maps of the area within 5- and 50-mile radii, respectively. Figure 2.3-43 is a topographic cross section of the Fermi site area out to 5 miles from the plant site and Figure 2.3-44 is a topographic cross section of the Fermi site out to 50 miles.

2.3.2.4.2.

Topographic Influences on Meteorological Diffusion Estimates The major local topographic effect on site meteorology is the presence of Lake Erie and the resultant occurrences of lake and land breeze circulations. Lake and land breeze circulations are driven by horizontal pressure gradients across the shoreline. These pressure gradients are the result of the temperature variation between water and land. This temperature differential between water and land can be most readily explained by the turbulent mixing and transport of surface heat by wave action and currents in a lake. This turbulent mixing process within FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-14 REV 1 8 10/1 2 the lake effects a continuous downward transport of surface heat through the water, thus lowering the surface water temperature (and also lowering the temperature of the overlying air), in contrast with the strong surface heating of the air over the shoreline region. This contrast is also intensified because the lake water has a higher thermal capacity than that of the soil. The temperature differential across the shoreline is enhanced under clear skies and light geostrophic winds. Because the land is heated faster than the lake, the air above the land becomes warmer than the air above the lake. The warmer air over the land begins to rise as it expands and becomes less dense. At an average height aloft of 700 m, a pressure gradient from the land to the lake is formed (Reference 23). Because of this pressure gradient, air begins to flow from the land toward the lake. This offshore flow aloft is known as the return flow. Typical return flows extend above 1500 m and have velocities that can exceed 5 m/sec.

Because air is advected from the land to over the lake aloft, a surface low is formed over the land and a surface high is formed over the water. With a surface pressure gradient thus formed, an onshore wind flow at the surface (the lake breeze) is started. To complete the circulation cell of the lake breeze, there is strong upward motion (with average updrafts of over 1 mph) over the land and subsiding air over the lake. Figure 2.3-45 is a schematic representation of the streamlines during a well-developed lake breeze cell (Reference 23). Although formation of the lake breeze circulation is usually perpendicular to the shoreline, Coriolis forces become significant as the system matures. During the later afternoon, the lake breeze can be expected to have a major component parallel to the shore (i.e., to the right of the original trajectory).

In the middle latitudes, lake breezes can occur during 30 to 60 percent of the days in the spring and summer months of the year. Lake breezes can also occur during the fall and winter seasons, although less frequently than during the spring and summer. Land breezes are the converse of lake breezes and may develop when lake temperatures are warmer than land temperatures, such as during the fall and early winter, or during the night in the summer.

However, land breezes are generally weaker and less frequent than lake breezes. Once the lake becomes covered by ice, the temperature differential between lake and land becomes minimal, and the lake effect becomes nonexistent.

The front edge of the lake breeze flow has the basic characteristics of a cold front with cool, moist lake air behind the front advancing inland. This lake breeze front may advance 30 km or more inland (Reference 24). During onshore wind flow, such as a lake breeze, cool air flowing off the lake is modified by thermal surface heating and by surface roughness effects as the air flows over the land. The air from the lake is modified significantly as it flows over the land, especially during the spring and early summer. The air is heated from below, resulting in an unstable vertical temperature gradient and hence enhanced diffusion conditions. Surface roughness effects over the land increase atmospheric turbulence (also resulting in enhanced diffusion conditions), although low-level wind speeds will decrease. The thermal and roughness effects occur at the shoreline and form a "boundary layer" which increases vertically with distance inland. Within this boundary layer is unstable air, with stable air and an intense elevated inversion (suppressed diffusion) above the boundary layer. During the late fall and winter seasons, especially when there is not as large a temperature differential between the FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-15 REV 1 8 10/1 2 lake and the land as during the spring and early summer, the boundary layer is more shallow and the surface-based inversion (suppressed diffusion), normally formed right at the lakeshore, penetrates further inland. Offshore wind flows generally result in somewhat suppressed diffusion conditions. The warm air advected from over the land is cooled from below, resulting in a stable vertical temperature gradient (inversion) and less diffusion for the over-water flow than for an overland flow. There is also a decrease in wind turbulence, although wind speeds will increase as the air flows from the relatively rough land surface over the smooth water surface. In addition to lake land breezes near a shoreline, there are also downwash and upwash effects. The primary cause of a downwash or upwash condition is the difference in surface roughness between the land and the lake (Reference 24). The upwash situation occurs with the winds blowing off the lake. The air flows from the relatively frictionless lake surface over the rough land, and a reduction in low-level wind speed occurs. This reduction in wind speed enhances plume rise to the extent that the plume can more easily escape the dynamic downwash effects of the plant structure. Downwash effects occur primarily with an offshore wind. The low-level winds coming off the relatively rough land over the smooth lake increase in speed. This increase in wind speed enhances plume downwash toward the lake surface.

A qualitative study of the surface characteristics of lake breezes at and in the near vicinity of the Fermi 2 site has been reported in Reference 25. The preliminary results of this study confirm the aforementioned factors. During the summer months, about one-third of the days were determined to give rise to a lake breeze situation. The inland penetration of these airflows averaged about 4 miles with a mean temperature decrease at the site of about 2 F and a relative humidity increase at the site of about 10 percent. The mean wind speed change due to a lake breeze situation was small (1 to 2 mph) when the lake breeze was in a direction so as to enhance the wind speed. Under conditions when the lake breeze occurred in opposition to a gradient wind, some wind direction changes were found. However, the infrequency of these situations makes it doubtful that the lake breeze could significantly change the atmospheric dispersion of effluents on an annual basis. Edison performed a short-term meteorological study, specifically for emergency planning application, during the lake breeze seasons of 1983 and 1984 to determine the effect of Lake Erie on plume transport characteristics at the Fermi 2 sit e.2.3.3. Onsite Meteorological Programs 2.3.3.1. Preoperational Onsite Meteorological Program 2.3.3.1.1.

Meteorological Facility Operations Onsite data presented in this report were collected from three different locations within the site boundary: from a 60-m tower approximately 2400 ft southwest of the Fermi 2 reactor building (since June 1, 1974) (Data from the 60-m tower were used for the diffusion estimate modeling); from the Fermi 1 100-ft tower located approximately 500 ft south-southeast of the Fermi 1 turbine building (December 1, 1956, to November 30, 1959); and from a 10-m (33-ft) tower located near Langton Road (January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-16 REV 1 8 10/1 2 Data were also collected from a 150-m tower that was located approximately 2400 ft south of Fermi 2 on the Lake Erie shoreline. One year of data (June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975) from the 150-m tower and the 60-m tower were compared (Reference 26). The results of that study show that the 60-m tower data are representative of the Fermi 2 onsite meteorological conditions. When the Fermi 2 preoperational meteorological program was completed May 31, 1976, the 150-m tower was decommissioned. At that time, the 60-m tower operations were also discontinued until approximately 18 months prior to Fermi 2 fuel load (Reference 27). Following this, meteorological data have been collected only from the 60-m tower; thus the 60-m tower data are presented in this section. The 60-m tower data were collected, developed, and analyzed according to Regulatory Guides 1.23 and 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 26).

The bases for decommissioning the 150-m tower, which was approved by the NRC (Reference 27), were as follows:

a. The analysis of the meteorological data collected shows the 60-m tower data are, for most parameters including /Q values, a more conservative characterization of the Fermi 2 conditions b. The inland location of the 60-m tower is more representative of the air layer into which the plant effluent will be released since the gaseous release point is approximately 250 m from the shoreline on the west side (inland) of the building complex
c. Gas turbine peaking units located north of the 150-m tower affect the temperature measurements at the 10-m and 60-m levels, and consequently T values, when the winds are from the north-northwest sector. During these periods, the data have to be rejected, which can seriously jeopardize the 90 percent data-recovery requirement of Regulatory Guide 1.23 d. The Fermi 1 plant structures are located such that building wake may bias the wind data for the 150-m tower for northerly directions
e. The 60-m tower is less susceptible to the icing conditions and localized lake shoreline effects experienced at the 150

-m tower f. The 2 years of data collected on the 150-m tower compare favorably, indicating only minor variations between seasons that are considered to be within the expected statistical variations between years. Thus 1 year of data at either tower, since it can be assumed the 60-m tower correlations would be valid for any year period, can be considered representative of site meteorology.

Data and discussions for the 100-ft and Langton Road towers are presented to provide supplementary site information. Data reduction on the 100-ft tower covered only the period from 1956 to 1959 to obtain data for the Fermi 1 plant; therefore, neither the instruments, data collection methods, nor data-reduction methods meet Regulatory Guide 1.23 requirements. The 33-ft Langton Road tower was originally installed as a satellite to the 150-m tower and was not instrumented to meet Regulatory Guide 1.23 requirements. A brief description of the 100-ft and 33-ft towers is presented in the following paragraphs. On the 100-ft tower, wind speed and direction were measured at the 24-ft (7 m) level, 56-ft (17 m) level, and the 100-ft (30 m) level. Temperature sensing elements were located at 5 ft (1.5 m), 25 ft (7.6 m), 57 ft (17 m), and 100 ft (30 m). A standard National Weather Service FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-17 REV 1 8 10/1 2 rain gage was located near the base of the tower.

Specifically, the instrumentation of the 100-ft tower included

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

Data analyses are available from the above station for the December 1, 1956, to November 30, 1959, period and include only the 100-ft wind and temperature measurements T (100 ft-25 ft). The Langton Road tower (33 ft) was onsite in an open field, approximately 3500 ft west of the plant. This 10-m tower was maintained and operated by the University of Michigan.

Wind data at Langton Road were collected at the 10

-m level; temperature and relative humidity were recorded on a hygrothermograph housed in a conventional instrument shelter at a height of approximately 5 ft (1.5 m). Specifically, the instrumentation at the Langton Road tower included

a. Wind instrumentation - Gill propeller vane direction and speed sensors at the 10-m level b. Temperature and humidity instrumentation - Belfort hygrothermograph housed in a conventional instrument shelter. The specifications for the above equipment are summarized in Table 2.3-20. Data have been collected and reduced from this station for the January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, period.2.3.3.1.2.

Preoperational 60-Meter Tower Meteorological Data System All the preoperational meteorological data systems that have been used during the Fermi 2 program are described in this section. The data are available from the 150-m tower (Reference 26), but are not reported herein.

2.3.3.1.2.1.Instrumentation A revised Fermi 2 site meteorological program was initiated in November 1973 that more adequately measured meteorological conditions at the Fermi site and met the requirements of Regulatory Guide 1.23. The revised program included the reinstrumentation of the 150-m tower on January 23, 1974, and the installation of a 60-m tower with identical instrumentation. The two-tower program monitored most meteorological conditions, with the 150-m tower measuring undisturbed onshore flow off Lake Erie, and the 60-m tower measuring the perturbed onshore flow characteristic of conditions that could affect gaseous effluent releases during overland flow conditions. Figure 2.3-46 is a map of the Fermi site area with the meteorological tower locations.

Instrumentation on the 60-m tower measured wind speed, wind direction, and temperature at the 10-m level and the 60-m level. In addition, dewpoint was measured at the 10-m level, and precipitation was measured at ground level.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-18 REV 1 8 10/1 2 The interface electronics and backup analog recorders were located at the base of the 60

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

The revised meteorological program instrumentation specifications are shown in Table 2.3-

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

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-19 REV 1 8 10/1 2 2.3.3.1.2.3.Service and Maintenance Analog. Visits were made twice a week to the 150

-m tower to change chart paper, fill inkwells and pens, and change ribbons. A visual inspection of the sensors was made to see if they had been damaged. Using the same precision test equipment used for calibration, all instrumentation was checked to ensure reliable operation.

Digital. Daily operational checks and service were performed by a resident technician. These checks included inspection of the data to determine that all sensors were functioning correctly and of the strip charts to ensure accurate recording. In addition, the technician marked the correct time to the nearest minute on the strip chart and verified the correct time of the digital system. Visual inspections of sensors were also performed to ensure that they had not been physically damaged.

2.3.3.1.3.

Data Analysis Procedures The data analysis procedures discussed in this subsection were those used for the data reported herein, which includes data from the 60-m tower, 100-ft tower, and Langton Road tower. The total preoperational meteorological program also included the 150-m tower from which data were collected and analyzed over the period from July 3, 1973, to May 31, 1975.

However, approximately 170 m north of the 150-m tower, four peaking units were located that were operated during periods of high electrical demand. When the peaking units were in operation and the wind was from the north, it was occasionally noticed that significant increases in temperature at the 60-m and 150-m levels occurred. Because of this, it was deemed necessary to delete periods during which peaking unit operation influenced the determination of the lapse rate. This influence was apparent several times during the course of the annual data collection. Because of the problems associated with the 150-m tower's location, the 60-m tower was installed. An analysis of 1 year of simultaneous meteorological data from the 150-m tower and 60-m tower (Reference 26) showed that the 60-m tower data were representative of the onsite meteorology. Thus, after the Fermi 2 preoperational onsite meteorological data collection was completed, the 150-m tower was decommissioned.

Future data will be collected using the 60-m tower only (Reference 26).

2.3.3.1.3.1.60-Meter Tower Data Reduction The meteorological monitoring systems for the Fermi site are described in Subsection 2.3.3.1.2. The data acquisition system utilized two levels of instrumentation (10-m and 60-m) on the 60-m tower located approximately 2400 ft southwest of the Fermi 2 plant. The atmospheric stability conditions were determined from the temperature differences (T) between the 10-m and 60-m temperature measurements, in accordance with the Pasquill Stability Criteria, Conditions A through G. Data from the 60-m tower were read by computer from paper tape to an IBM computer

-compatible disk pack and magnetic tape for further use in modeling the site meteorological conditions and /Q calculations for various time periods. Strip charts were used only for backup. The strip- chart data, when needed, were read manually and the data put on IBM cards. Data from the charts were recovered by averaging the 15-minute period immediately preceding the hour. As long as 90 percent of the time span (13.5 minutes) was available for averaging, the data were deemed valid.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-20 REV 1 8 10/1 2 As a continuing operational verification of data validity, comparisons for all sensors at all levels on the tower between analog and digital averages were made on a random basis during the preoperational phase. The results of these comparisons for all parameters at the 10

-m level and the air temperature at the 60

-m level of the 60-m tower are shown in Table 2.3-22. For all checks the correlations are excellent. Differences can be attributed to strip

-chart-reading error combined with the greater resolution of the digital system.

Precipitation at ground level was recorded onsite starting December 7, 1973. With the digital system operational, the strip charts were used only for backup, thus eliminating the strip-chart-reading task. Digital data were verified periodically against strip charts.2.3.3.1.3.2. Langton Road Tower and 100-Ft Tower Data Reduction Data from the 10-m Langton Road tower were recorded on strip charts and manually reduced. One 10-minute sample for each 1

-hr available

-data period was obtained for values of the wind direction range (i.e., the extremes of the direction trace peaks). Average values of wind direction and wind speed were obtained by visually estimating a median for the 1-hr sample of the analog traces. One reading was taken for each 1 hr of data available to obtain instantaneous values of temperature and relative humidity. The manually reduced data were transcribed on cards and were used as computer input for data analysis and summary. Data from the 100-ft tower were also recorded on strip charts and manually reduced. Hourly averages of wind direction, wind speed, and temperature were obtained by estimating a median for the analog trace.

2.3.3.1.4.

Meteorological Data Recovery 2.3.3.1.4.1. 60-Meter Tower Data Recovery The meteorological data recovery rates for the 60-m tower data for the June 1, 1974 through May 31, 1975 period are listed in Table 2.3-23. The joint data recovery (T, wind speed, wind direction) for the June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975, period of 91.16 percent meets the 90 percent required by Regulatory Guide 1.23 The joint data recovery of wind speed and direction and T for the January 1, 1995 through December 31, 1999 10-meter tower data that was utilized in the PAVAN model for accidental releases at offsite locations is 96.2 percent, also meeting the NRC 90 percent criterion.

For the calculations presented herein, only 10-m wind speed and direction, and temperature differences between 60-m and 10-m were used to calculate the short

-term postulated accidental release diffusion estimates based on the 1995-1999 data. The 10-m and 60-m wind speeds were used to calculate the long

-term mixed-mode annual average X/Q and D/Q values based on the June 1974 through May 1975 period.2.3.3.1.4.2. Langton Tower and 100-Ft Tower Data Recovery The meteorological data

-recovery rates for the 33

-ft Langton Tower data are listed in Table 2.3-24. Wind data for the January 1, 1972, to December 31, 1972, period have not been included in this report due to a low data-recovery rate. The recovery was 94 percent for the FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-21 REV 1 8 10/1 2 temperature and relative humidity data for the report period. The data-recovery rate for the 100-ft tower was 77 percent for temperature data, and 96 percent for the 100-ft- level wind data for the December 1, 1956, to November 30, 1959, period. Data-recovery information for other levels of the 100-ft tower are not readily available.

2.3.3.2. Operational Meteorological Monitoring System The previously described preoperational meteorological program was upgraded for plant operation. The upgraded program is composed of two independent meteorological trains of instrumentation

- a primary train and a secondary train - mounted on the 60-m tower. Both trains feed the data acquisition equipment of the Integrated Plant Computer System (IPCS) located in the Fermi 2 control center. The IPCS has the capability to share the meteorological data with other plant computers, display the data on IPCS terminals at various plant locations, and perform plume dispersion analysis in support of Emergency Plan activities. Users at remote locations can access the meteorologic al data on IPCS through dedicated remote access devices. The NRC can also receive selected meteorological data through the Emergency Response Data System (ERDS). The operational meteorological monitoring system is described in further detail in the following subsections and is illustrated in Figure 2.3-47.

2.3.3.2.1.

Instrumentation Table 2.3-25 lists the meteorological parameters monitored, the sampling height(s), and the sensing technique for the primary and secondary systems. To minimize data loss due to ice storms, external heaters are installed on all primary wind sensors. The heaters are thermostatically controlled and are of the slip-on/slip-off design for easy attachment. The wind sensor specifications are not affected by these heaters.

A windscreen is mounted around the precipitation gage to minimize the amount of windblown snow and debris deposited in the gage. Electrical power is supplied to the primary and secondary systems by independent power supplies. One source of power is Fermi 2; the other is an offsite source. If one supply fails, the other automatically supplies the necessary power for both systems. Two precautions are taken to minimize lightning damage to the system. Two of the three legs are grounded and the signal cables are routed through a lightning protection panel. Each signal line is protected by transient protection diodes specifically designed to stay below the individual

line voltage breakdown point.

2.3.3.2.2.

Signal Conditioning Inside the environmentally controlled instrument shelter, sensor signals are conditioned.

Each sensor signal requires a single printed-circuit board to perform the necessary conversion, amplification, and scaling to provide a pair of analog outputs for each parameter.

Zero and full-scale test switches are front-panel mounted on each printed-circuit board to facilitate parameter testing.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-22 REV 1 8 10/1 2 After conditioning through their respective printed-circuit boards, the 10-m horizontal wind direction and vertical wind speed signals pass into the Climatronics Standard Deviation Computer boards to compute the 15-minute average sigma theta and sigma phi. The primary and secondary signal conditioner and standard deviation computer boards are completely independent of each other.

2.3.3.2.3.

Data Transmission The outputs of the instrument signal conditioning equipment is transmitted to the control center via two independent transmission lines. The one line incorporates a phone line between the shelter and the nuclear operations center, where information is microwaved to the Office Service Building. From the Office Service Building, the signals are transmitted to the control center. The second line uses a separate phone line from the shelter to the nuclear operations center, where the data are transmitted to the office service building via a phone line. From the office service building, the signals are transmitted to the control center. The two signals are electrically separated from one another from the 60-m tower to the control center. The instrumentation at the 60-m tower is electrically isolated from the equipment in the control center computer room.

2.3.3.2.4.

Data Acquisition The dual IPCS data acquisition multiplexors accept two trains of data from the Meteorological system primary and secondary data acquisition equipment. This data is provided to the IPCS computers to perform meteorological calculations, update the data archive, display the information on the m an-machine interface, and output the data to communication devices. The IPCS provides redundant computers that provide a main (Master) and backup (Slave) capability. The redundant computers in conjunction with the two trains of data acquisition provide two independent paths of data. The IPCS system monitors available error signals to determine equipment status. If an instrument input malfunctions, if data are suspect, or an instrument input is manually removed from service, the IPCS will substitute the reading from the next level of redundancy as listed in Table 2.3-26 and indicate the substitution on the IPCS computers. Meteorological data are available in five different formats: instantaneous values, 1

-minute blocked averages, 15-minute rolling averages, 15-minute blocked averages, and 1-hour blocked averages.

In the event that a data path to IPCS is unavailable, a recorder is available on each train of instrumentation at the meteorological instrument building to archive the raw dat a.2.3.4. Short-Term (Accident) Diffusion Estimates 2.3.4.1. Calculation of Offsite Atmospheric Diffusion Coefficients 2.3.4.1.1.

Objective To evaluate the dispersion potential of the atmosphere in the Fermi site area, calculations were made of concentrations of effluents normalized by the source strength of the power FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-23 REV 1 8 10/1 2 plant release. These atmospheric dilution factors were calculated using the meteorological data collected onsite from January 1, 1995 - December 31, 1999. Short-term offsite transport was modeled using the PAVAN software (Reference 28), which is based on the NRC design-basis-accident methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.145 (Reference 31). PAVAN is a commercial software package applicable to nuclear safety

-related analyses as well as non

-safety related studies and evaluations. Its use is applicable for determining normalized offsite concentrations as required for the Exclusion Area Boundary (EAB) and the Low Population Zone (LPZ). These locations are defined in UFSAR Sections 2.1.2 and 2.1.3.3 as radial distances of 915 m and 4827 m, respectively, from the containment building. Six different /Q values, corresponding to six different time periods following an accident, were calculated. The time periods postulated to follow an accident are those specified by the NRC in Regulatory Guide 1.145. These are 0-2 hr, 0-8 hr, 8-24 hr, 1-4 days, 4-30 days and the annual period.

2.3.4.1.2.

Dispersion Equations This section describes the governing atmospheric dispersion modeling equations and assumptions in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.145. Ground-level/Q values were calculated for the 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> following the accident for the EAB and LPZ, and for the annual period for the LPZ. Calculations were based on the following equations:

Q= (2.3-1) Q= (2.3-2) Q= (2.3-3) Where: is relative concentration, in sec/m 3 is 3.14159 U is wind speed at 10 meters above plant grade, in m/sec is lateral plume spread, in m, a function of atmospheric stability and distance z is vertical plume spread, in m, a function of atmospheric stability and distance y is lateral plume spread with meander and building wake effects (in meters), a function of atmospheric stability, wind speed, and distance [for distances of 800 m or less, y=M y, where M is determined from Regulatory Guide 1.145 Figure 3; for distances greater than 800 m, y=(M-1)y800m+ y A is the smallest vertical

-plane cross-sectional area of the reactor building, in m 2 (other structures or a directional consideration may be justified when appropriate). Offsite /Qs are calculated assuming a minimum cross

-sectional FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-24 REV 1 8 10/1 2 area, A, of the combined reactor/auxiliary building of 2300 m 2, as shown in Figure 2.3-48 Plume meander is only considered during neutral (D) or stable (E, F, or G) atmospheric stability conditions where the highest /Q values resulting from equations 2.3-1, 2.3-2 and 2.3-3 is selected. For all other conditions (stability classes A, B, or C), meander is not considered and the highest /Q value of equations 2.3-1 and 2.3-2 is selected.

The /Q values calculated at the EAB based on meteorological data representing a 1-hour average is assumed to apply for the entire 2

-hour period.

2.3.4.1.3.

Determination of Max Sector and Overall 5 Percent Site /Q Values 2.3.4.1.3.1.Maximum Sector /Q To determine the maximum sector /Q value at the EAB, a cumulative frequency probability distribution (probabilities of a given /Q value being exceeded in that sector during the total time) is constructed for each of the 16 sectors using the /Q values calculated for each hour of data. This probability is then plotted versus the /Q values and a smooth curve is drawn to form an upper bound of the computed points. For each of the 16 curves, the /Q value that i s exceeded 0.5 percent of the total hours is selected and designated as the sector /Q value. The highest of the 16 sector /Q values is the maximum sector /Q. Determination of the LPZ maximum sector /Q is based on a logarithmic interpolation between the 2-hour sector /Q and the annual average /Q for the same sector. For each time period, the highest of these 16 sector /Q values is identified as the maximum sector /Q value. The maximum sector /Q values will, in most cases, occur in the same sector. If they do not occur in the same sector, all 16 sets of values will be used in dose assessment requiring time-integrated concentration considerations. The set that results in the highest time-integrated dose within a sector is considered the maximum sector /Q.2.3.4.1.3.2. 5 Percent Overall Site /Q The 5 percent overall site /Q value for the EAB and LPZ is determined by constructing an overall cumulative probability distribution for all directions. /Q versus the probability of being exceeded is then plotted and an upper bound curve is drawn. From this curve, the 2-hour /Q value that is exceeded 5 percent of the time is found. The 5 percent overall site /Q at the LPZ for intermediate time periods is determined by logarithmic interpolation of the maximum of the 16 annual average /Q values and the 5 percent 2-hour /Q values.

2.3.4.1.4.

Wind Speed Categorization The meteorological database was prepared for use in PAVAN by transforming the five years (i.e., 1995-1999) of hourly meteorological tower data observations into a joint wind speed-wind direction-stability class occurrence frequency distribution. Seven (7) wind speed categories were defined according to Regulatory Guide 1.23 (Reference 16) with the first category identified as "calm". The higher of the starting speeds of the wind vane and anemometer (i.e., 0.75 mph) was used as the threshold for calm winds, per Regulatory Guide 1.145, Section 1.1. A midpoint was also assumed between each of the Regulatory Guide 1.23 FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-25 REV 1 8 10/1 2 wind speed categories, Nos. 2-6, as to be inclusive of all wind speeds. The wind speed categories have therefore been defined as follows:

Category No.

Regulatory Guide 1.23 Speed Interval (mph)

PAVAN-Assumed Speed Interval (mph) 1 (Calm) 0 to < 1 0 to < 0.75 2 1 to 3 0.75 to < 3.5 3 4 to 7 3.5 to < 7.5 4 8 to 12 7.5 to < 12.5 5 13 to 18 12.5 to < 18.5 6 19 to 24 18.5 to < 24 7 >24 24 In the equations shown in Section 2.3.4.1.2, it should be noted that wind speed appears as a factor in the denominator. This causes difficulties in making calculations for periods of calm. The procedures used by PAVAN to assign a direction to each calm period according to the directional distribution for the lowest wind-speed class. This is done separately for the calms in each stability class.

2.3.4.1.5.

Short-Term X/Q Modeling Results Atmospheric diffusion estimates developed for use in evaluating accidents are summarized in Table 2.3-27 for the above-mentioned periods following the accident. This table includes estimates for the maximum sector and overall 5 percent site /Q.2.3.4.2. Calculation of Onsite (Control Room) /Q Values 2.3.4.2.1.

Objective To evaluate the dispersion potential of the atmosphere in the Fermi site area, calculations were made of concentrations of effluents normalized by the source strength of the power

plant release. These atmospheric dilution factors were calculated using the meteorological data collected onsite from January 1, 1995-December 31, 1999. Short-term onsite transport was modeled using the ARCON96 software, which is a commercially available general code for assessing atmospheric relative concentrations in the presence building wakes that is based on the NRC design-basis-accident methodology in Regulatory Guide 1.194 (Reference 32). The code user documentation and calculation methodology is documented in Revision 1 of NUREG/CR-6331, "Atmospheric Relative Concentrations in Building Wakes" (Reference 33

). ARCON calculates relative concentrations for a specified source

-to-receptor configuration with the user supplied hourly meteorological data. It then combines the hourly averages to estimate concentrations for periods ranging in duration from 2 hours2.314815e-5 days <br />5.555556e-4 hours <br />3.306878e-6 weeks <br />7.61e-7 months <br /> to 30 days. Wind direction is considered as the averages are formed. As a result, the averages account for persistence in both diffusion conditions and wind direction. Cumulative frequency distributions are prepared from the average relative concentrations. Relative concentrations that are exceeded no more than five percent of the time (95 th percentile relative concentrations) are determined from the cumulative frequency distributions for each averaging period. Finally, the relative concentrations for five standard averaging periods (0

-

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-26 REV 1 8 10/1 2 2 hr, 2-8 hr, 1-4 days and 4-30 days) are calculated from the 95 th percentile relative concentrations.

2.3.4.2.2.

Dispersion Equations This section describes the governing atmospheric dispersion modeling equations and assumptions (with noted exceptions) in accordance with Regulatory Guide 1.194. The basic diffusion model implemented in the ARCON96 is a straight-line Gaussian model that assumes the release rate is constant for the entire period of release. This assumption is made to permit evaluation of potential effects of accidental releases without having to specify a complete release sequence.

= exp0.5 (2.3-4) where: is relative concentration, in sec/m 3 is 3.14159 U is wind speed at 10 meters above plant grade, in m/sec.

y is lateral diffusion coefficient (m) z is vertical diffusion coefficient (m), and y is distance from the center of the plume (m)

This equation represents a ground level release that is assumed to be continuous, constant, and of sufficient duration to establish a relative mean concentration. It also assumes that the material being released is reflected by the ground. Diffusion coefficients are typically determined from atmospheric stability and distance from the release point using empirical relationships. ARCON96 uses the same diffusion coefficient ( z and y) parameterizations utilized in the NRC PAVAN code for calculating the short-term post-accident offsite atmospheric dispersion. Calculation of the onsite /Q values associated with stack releases (i.e., SGTS, RBHVAC, and the TBHVAC), the "vent release" option was specified in conjunction with a zero-vent velocity. According to Regulatory Guide 1.194, the NRC specifies a ground release as the acceptable release mode for performing atmospheric dispersion calculations, consistent with this philosophy, the NRC does not accept the ARCON96 vent release calculation methodology. However, ARCON96 is coded to use the ground release equations when the vent exiting velocity is less than the wind-speed. Thus, in specifying a zero vent exiting velocity for cases where the vent release option was selected, the ground release equations were implemented and the intent of Regulatory Guide 1.194 was met. The purpose for specifying the zero-velocity vent release option was to allow for consideration of the 60-meter meteorological data in the calculation of the atmospheric relative concentration.

Alternatively, the ground release option could have been specified with same inputs for the release and receptor elevations with the same result. In addition, in specifying the vent release, no credit was assumed for pre-dilution of the relative source term concentration FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-27 REV 1 8 10/1 2 inside the secondary containment or turbine building free air volumes or in the volumetric flows of the HVAC system associated with a particular vent location. ARCON 96 includes the effects of low wind speed and building wake by replacing z and y above by composite wake diffusion coefficients of the following form: = ++

and = (++

) (2.3-5) where Z and y are the normal diffusion coefficients and z1 and y1 are the low wind speed corrections and z2 and y2 correct for building wake. The building wake correction is calculated based on a 2300 m 2 building area cross-section. ARCON96 was run assuming the default surface roughness factor of 0.1 meters. This value is representative of a terrain having low-lying vegetation; i.e., farmland, wetland, etc.

2.3.4.2.3.

Wind Speed Categorization The meteorological database was prepared for use in ARCON96 by transforming the five years (i.e., 1995-1999) of hourly meteorological tower data observations into the format required by ARCON96. The required input consists of the Julian day, hour, 10-meter wind direction, 10-meter wind speed, stability class, 60-meter wind direction, and 60-meter wind speed for each of these years. ARCON96 requires the specification of the calm threshold.

/Q values calculated using wind velocities below the calm threshold are automatically included in the statistical evaluation of a specific regardless of the associated wind direction. Regulatory Guide 1.194 suggests a minimum calm threshold of 0.5 m/s; however, the ARCON96 performed in support of Alternate Source Term implementation were reviewed and approved with a calm threshold of 0.33 m/s. Based on NRC endorsement of the regulatory guide and endorsement of the original AST submittal, both values are acceptable.

2.3.4.2.4.

Physical Orientation of Source-Receptor Combinations and Dual Inlet Credit Consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.194, Position 3.4, the source-to-receptor distances used to calculate the atmospheric dispersion coefficients were calculated as the slant distance or direct line-of-site distances. Conservatively, the values of relative air concentrations used to evaluate vital area doses do not credit the additional distance incurred in circumventing intervening plant structures. However, such credit is permitted in accordance with the NRC methodology and was considered in evaluating the relative importance of postulated potential MSIV and secondary containment bypass leak release locations against the Turbine Building exhaust stack as a single representative release point.

2.3.4.2.4.1. DBA LOCA Post LOCA atmospheric dispersion of ECCS and primary containment leakage was evaluated based on an assumed release via the SGTS stack to the control room north and south emergency air intakes. The TBHVAC stack was the assumed release point for Main Steam Line Leakage, also having the main control room north and south emergency air intakes as receptors. The table below identifies the horizontal and vertical separation distances between the postulated source and receptor locations. The RBHVAC stack and FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-28 REV 1 8 10/1 2 secondary containment wall were not assumed release locations evaluated in support of the LOCA analysis performed using the Alternate Source term. Nevertheless, their physical locations with respect to the control center emergency air intakes are included for historical purposes. Source Release Location Intake Separation Distance, meters

[Horizontal/Vertical]

South Emergency/Normal

  • North Emergency SGTS Stack 39.4/24.9 17.2/35.8 TBHVAC Stack 6 9.1/1 0.7 111.1/2 1.6 RBHVAC Stack 11.6/24.9 48.8/35.8 Secondary Containment Wall 13.9/0 13.9/0 *Note that the vertical distance used to calculate the atmospheric dispersion coefficients for transport to the south emergency air intake for the LOCA analysis credits only the upper, missile

-proof portion of the inlet plenum. The south emergency air intake also includes a safety

-related sided enclosure that extends the intake down an additional 10.9 meters.

The Fermi 2 Control Center HVAC system is designed with dual emergency makeup air inlets located on the North and South sides of the Auxiliary Building. With the exception of the TBHVAC exhaust stack, the emergency air inlets have a separation distance that is sufficient to place them outside of a 90 wind direction window centered on the line-of-sight from any of the stack locations above to the opposite emergency air intakes. Thus, consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.194, Position 3.3.2, they are configured such that neither release point is capable of simultaneously impacting both air inlets. Furthermore, the Control Room Emergency Filtration System associated with CCHVAC is capable of automatically selecting the inlet with the lowest dose. However, the operators are procedurally instructed to take manual control of the inlet selection. On this basis, consistent with Regulatory Guides 6.4 and 1.194, Position 3.3.2.3, the /Q associated with the most favorable intake is assumed and divided by a factor of four. Fermi differs from the Regulatory Guide 1.194, Position 3.3.2.3 in that the factor of four is applied from the start of the accident rather than from the time the manual action is assumed to occur. The TBHVAC stack is the assumed release point for the source term associated with Main Steam Isolation Valve leakage. This stack location does not have sufficient separation relative to the two inlets to allow dual inlet credit. The value of /Q calculated by ARCON96 is used directly (i.e., with no correction or reduction) to represent MSIV leakage transport to the control center with only credit for the ability of the operator to select the most favorable inlet. In this manner, the transport to the control center occurs instantaneously as the leakage occurs as if TBHVAC were in operation with no credit for any dilution in the TBHVAC airflow or the very large volume above the turbine deck. Each of the thirteen smoke vents on the Turbine Building roof and the external doors associated with the turbine and auxiliary buildings were also considered in selecting an appropriate release location. While the

/Q s calculated for these locations were potentially larger than that associated with the TBHVAC stack value, the conservatism in the application of the stack value with no credit taken for mixing or deposition was considered adequately compensating.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-29 REV 1 8 10/1 2 2.3.4.2.4.2.Fuel Handling Accident Fermi considers two types of fuel handling accidents, one that occurs 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> post-scram that involves a drop of recently irradiated fuel and credits only secondary containment and the operation of the SGTS for mitigation. The second type of fuel handling accident involving fuel that is no longer "recently irradiated," which occurs following a post-scram delay period sufficient such that credit for secondary containment and SGTS operation is not required. Although not specifically required in Regulatory Guides 1.183 and 1.194, the FHA analyses submitted in support of Amendments 144 and 160, conservatively applied the 0-2 hr control room /Q values calculated by ARCON96 to the entire 30-day duration of accident. Neither type of fuel handling accident assumes credit for the operation of the Control Room Emergency Filtration System. Consequently, the factor associated with the dual inlet configuration is not credited for reducing the value of /Q calculated by the ARCON96 software. Adequate separation is credited, however, to ensure that only the single most limiting air intake is specified.

The release and receptor locations used to evaluate the radiological consequences of the fuel handling accident differ from those associated with the DBA LOCA and depend on which of the two types of fuel handling accidents is to be evaluated.

2.3.4.2.4.2.1.

24-Hour Fuel Handling Accident Involving Recently Irradiated Fuel This accident postulates an initial brief period of unfiltered release via the RBHVAC stack prior to secondary containment isolation and operation of the SGTS. ARCON96 was used to calculate the atmospheric dispersion coefficient representing transport from these stacks to each emergency air intake. The source

-to-receptor distances are as specified in the table in Section 2.3.4.2.4.1 except the additional vertical distance of 10.9 meters associated with the full length of the south emergency air intake is credited.

2.3.4.2.4.2.2.

Fuel Handling Accident Involving Fuel No Longer Considered Recently Irradiated This accident assumes no credit for secondary containment isolation or operation of the SGTS. Consequently, the most likely release path would be via the RBHVAC stack as a consequence of continued RBHVAC operation. Several source-to-receptor locations were considered in establishing the limiting plant configuration, these included the SGTS and RBHVAC stacks as well as the reactor building railroad bay and first floor personnel air-lock (via the Outage Building front) doors. While RBHVAC was identified and the most credible release point, the outage building front doors were conservatively selected as a bounding release location. Due to the location of the outage doors on the south side of the reactor building, the corresponding limiting receptor location is the south emergency air intake. The horizontal and vertical distances between these source and receptor locations are 29.3 m and 18.6 m for an overall slant distance of 34.7 m. The overall slant distance was input to ARCON96 in evaluating the associated atmospheric dispersion as a ground release.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-30 REV 1 8 10/1 2 This source-to-receptor pathway presumes the source term is removed from the building and is transported to the control room via the normal/emergency makeup air intakes. Thus, the control room envelope is effectively assumed to be intact and any maintenance that involves breaches of the control room envelope must include the controls necessary to preserve this assumption.

2.3.4.2.5.

Short-Term Onsite /Q Modeling Results Atmospheric diffusion estimates developed for use in evaluating accidents are summarized in Table 2.3-28.

2.3.5. Long-Term Diffusion and Deposition Calculations To evaluate the long

-term dispersion potential of the atmosphere in the Fermi site area, calculations were made of effluent concentrations normalized by source strength of the power plant release and relative deposition rate. These atmospheric dilution and deposition factors were calculated using meteorological data collected onsite at the 60-m tower over the period June 1, 1974, to May 31, 1975. The long-term calculations are based on the straight line trajectory airflow model where a mixed-mode release, depending on wind speed, is assumed as described in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1 (Reference 30).

The models used to evaluate the long-term (annual) estimates of /Q and D/Q are described in Annex B of Appendix 11A. The analyses reported herein were performed for three separate sources at the Fermi 2 site: the containment building vent, the turbine building vent, and the radwaste building vent. Since the calculations were performed assuming a mixed-mode release based on wind speed, the release characteristics of each source are given in Table 2.3-28. It should be noted that the results of the calculations performed for /Q (undecayed and undepleted, and decayed and depleted for radioiodines) and D/Q for radioiodines and particulates are presented in Appendix 2A.

2.3.5.1. Undecayed and Undepleted /Q Estimates Values of /Q assuming no decay or depletion were calculated for the three air effluent releases using the mixed-mode techniques referenced in Annex B to Appendix 11A and Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977. The calculations were performed for all 22-1/2 sectors at distances of

a. 0.4 to 1.6 km in 0.4-km increments
b. 1.6 to 16 km in 0.8-km increments
c. 16 to 80 km in 8-km increments. These values of undecayed and undepleted /Q in units of seconds per cubic meter are presented in "wheel diagrams" for each source in Figures 2.3-52 through 2.3-54. Note that each figure provides values for the three distances for each release point. The numerical /Q values are presented by distance and sector in Appendix 2A.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.3-31 REV 1 8 10/1 2 2.3.5.2. Decayed and Depleted /Q Estimates Values of /Q, assuming a radioactive effluent with a half-life of 8 days and using the plume depletion effect curves in Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977, in conjunction with the mixed-mode techniques, were calculated for the distances noted in Subsection 2.3.5.1. These values of decayed and depleted /Q in units of seconds per cubic meter are presented for each of the three sources in Figures 2.3-55 through 2.3-57. The numerical values are presented by distance and sector in Appendix 2A.

2.3.5.3. Relative Deposition Estimates Values of relative deposition (D/Q) per unit area were calculated for the three sources also using the mixed-mode techniques. The relative deposition-rate curves in Figures 6 through 9 of Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977, were used for the same distances as described above.

These values of relative deposition per unit area (square meters) are presented for each of the three sources in Figures 2.3-58 through 2.3-60. The numerical values are presented by distance and sector in Appendix 2A.

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.3 METEOROLOGY

REFERENCES 2.3-32 REV 1 8 10/1 2 1. Detroit (Metropolitan Airport), Michigan Local Climatological Data, Annual Summary with Comparative Data, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974.

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

Climatography of the United States, No. 20-20, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service, Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974. 5. Willis, Michigan Climatological Summary (revised December 1971),

Climatography of the United States, No. 20-20, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1974. 6. H. C. S. Thom, "New Distributions of Extreme Winds in the United States," Journal of the Structural Division Proceedings of the American Society of Civil Engineers", July 1968.

7. Storm Data, National Weather Records Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Service, Environmental Data Service, Asheville, North Carolina, Monthly from February 1965 to December 1974.
8. Climatological Data, National Summary - Annual, United States Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, 1951-1958.
9. A. B. Lowe and G. A. McKay, The Tornadoes of Western Canada, Meteorological Branch, Department of Transport, Cat. No. T56-2462, Ottawa, Canada, 1962.
10. H. C. S. Thom, "Tornado Probabilities," Monthly Weather Review, 91 (10-12), pp. 730-736, October-December 1963.
11. C. R. Hosler, "Low Level Inversion Frequency in the Contiguous United States,"

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

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.3 METEOROLOGY

REFERENCES 2.3-33 REV 1 8 10/1 2 14. J. D. Stackpole, The Air Pollution Potential Forecast Program, Weather Bureau Technical Memo NMC-43, National Meteorological Center, Suitland, Maryland, 1967. 15. J. J. Korshover, Climatology of Stagnating Anticyclones East of the Rocky Mountains, 1936-1965, U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1967.

16. USAEC Regulatory Guide 1.23, February 1972.
17. W. E. Hewson, et al., Third, Fourth, and Fifth Progress Reports, Meteorological Analysis, UMRI Project 2515, the University of Michigan Research Institute, Ann Arbor, Michigan, January 1960.
18. W. E. Hewson, G. C. Gill, and E. W. Bierly, Final Report, Meteorological Analysis, UMRI Project 2515, the University of Michigan Research Institute, January 1961.
19. B. D. Turner, "A Diffusion Model for an Urban Area," Journal of Applied Meteorology, Vol. 3, No. 1, pp. 81-83, February 1964.
20. H. R. Byers, General Meteorology, McGraw-Hill, Chapter 20, 1959.
21. D. R. Rondy, Great Lakes Ice Atlas, COM-71-01052, U.S. Department of Commerce, September 1971.
22. Enrico Fermi Atomic Power Plant, Unit 2, Environmental Report (Operating License Stage), Docket 50-341, Section 5.1, April 1975.
23. W. A. Lyons and L. E. Olsson, "Mesoscale Air Pollution Transport in the Chicago Lake Breeze," Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association, Vol. 22, No. 11, pp. 876-881, November 1972.
24. Isaac Van der Hoven, "Atmospheric Transport and Diffusion at Coastal Sites,"

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

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.3 METEOROLOGY

REFERENCES 2.3-34 REV 1 8 10/1 2 30. Methods for Estimating Atmospheric Transport and Dispersion of Gaseous Effluents in Routine Releases from Light-Water- Cooled Reactors. Regulatory Guide 1.111, Revision 1, July 1977.

31. Regulatory Guide 1.145, Atmospheric Dispersion Models for Potential Accident Consequence Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants (Revision 1), U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, November 1982.
32. Regulatory Guide 1.194, Atmospheric Relative Concentrations for Control Ro o m Radiological Habitability Assessments at Nuclear Power Plants, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, June 2003.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-1 Probability EXTREME WIND SPEED OCCURRENCE PROBABILITIES (AT 30 FT ABOVE GROUND)

Recurrence Interval (years)

Extreme Wind Speed (mph) 0.500 2 50 0.100 10 62 0.04 0 25 70 0.02 0 50 82 0.010 100 90 0.001 1000 117 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-2 Month DETROIT, MICHIGAN METROPOLITAN AIRPORT NORMALS, MEANS, AND EXTREMES Temperature Normal heating degree days (base 65°) Precipitation Relative Humidity Wind g Percent possible sunshine Mean sky cover sunrise to sunset Mean number of days Average daily solar radiation (langleys)

Normal Extremes Normal total Maximum monthly Year Minimum monthly Year Maximum in 24 hr Year Snow, Ice Pellets hr 01 hr 07 hr 13 hr 19 Mean speed Prevailing direction Fastest Mile h Sunrise to Sunset Precipitation 0.

01 in. or more Snow, ice pellets 1.0 in. or more Thunderstorms Heavy Fog Temperatures Maximum Minimum Daily maximum Daily minimum Monthly Record highest Year Record lowest Year Mean total Maximum monthly Year Maximu m in 24 hr Year Speed Directioni Year Clear Partly cloudy Cloudy 90 O and abovef 32 O and below 32 O and below 0 O and below (Local time)

(a) (b) (b) (b) 14 14 (b) (b) 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 5 6 6 7 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 J 33.3 19.0 26.2 62 1965 -14 1972 1203 1.93 3.63 1965 0.27 1961 1.72 1967 8.1 13.4 1959 6.6 1968 77 78 69 73 11.3 WSW 50 W 1971 38 7.5 4 7 20 13 3 (c) 3 0 17 30 4 F 34.4 18.9 26.7 58 1966 -9 1971 1072 1.95 2.68 1971 0.1 5 1969 1.23 1965 8.3 17.4 1962 10.3 1965 75 77 64 69 11.3 WSW 52 SW 1967 45 7.2 5 6 17 11 3 (c) 2 0 12 27 2 M 42.8 25.9 34.4 77 1963 1 1963 949 2.41 3.59 1965 0.92 1960 1.18 1972 6.3 16.1 1965 6.5 1968 76 78 61 65 11.2 WSW 36 SW 1969 52 7.2 5 8 18 13 2 1 2 0 5 25 0 A 56.7 36.2 46.5 85 1970d 17 1964 555 3.05 5.40 1961 0.92 1971 1.97 1965 1.6 7.4 1961 4.2 1961 75 79 55 59 11.2 WSW 45 SW 1968 54 6.8 6 7 17 13 1 4 1 0 (c) 10 0 M 68.8 46.4 57.6 92 1962 25 1966 259 3.54 5.88 1968 1.15 1965 2.87 1968 (e) (e) 1970d (e) 1970d 75 78 53 56 10.1 WSW 40 SW 1970 61 6.3 7 10 14 10 0 4 (c) (c) 0 1 0 J 79.0 56.8 67.9 99 1971 36 1972d 61 3.31 6.60 1960 2.12 1959 2.62 1960 0.0 0.0 0.0 80 80 54 59 8.8 SW 39 W 1970 62 5.9 8 10 12 11 0 6 1 3 0 0 0 J 83.9 60.9 72.4 98 1966 41 1965 0 2.69 6.02 1969 1.11 1964 3.19 1966 0.0 0.0 0.0 81 82 53 58 8.3 SW 50 SW 1968 65 5.7 8 13 10 10 0 6 1 4 0 0 0 A 82.1 59.4 70.8 97 1964 40 1964 11 2.84 7.70 1964 1.06 1969 3.21 1964 0.0 0.0 0.0 84 87 56 64 8.2 SW 36 NW 1971 71 5.4 10 11 10 9 0 6 2 3 0 0 0 S 74.5 52.0 63.3 94 1971d 33 1970d 111 2.32 5.83 1961 0.43 1960 2.07 1961 0.0 0.0 0.0 84 87 57 68 8.6 SW 34 W 1970 58 6.4 8 9 13 10 0 4 2 1 0 0 0 O 63.1 41.3 52.2 91 1963 18 1965 405 2.57 4.87 1967 0.35 1964 2.11 1959 (e) (e) 1972d (e) 1972d 81 84 56 68 9.2 WSW 33 SW 1968d 52 6.1 8 10 13 9 0 1 3 (c) 0 5 0 N 47.3 31.2 39.3 77 1968 9 1969d 771 2.27 3.31 1968 0.80 1964 1.52 1968 3.2 11.8 1966 5.2 1966d 80 83 66 74 10.6 SW 37 SW 1968 28 7.8 3 7 20 11 1 (c) 2 0 1 17 0 D 35.8 21.9 28.9 66 1966 -9 1960 1119 1.92 6.00 1965 0.46 1960 3.71 1965 8.0 17.3 1962 5.7 1966 79 81 71 76 10.8 SW 50 W 1972 25 7.9 3 7 21 13 3 (c) 3 0 13 26 1 June Jan. Aug. Feb. Dec. Feb. Feb. Feb. ` YR 58.5 39.2 48.9 99 1971 -14 1972 6516 30.80 7.70 1964 0.15 1969 3.71 1965 35.5 17.4 1962 10.3 1965 79 81 60 66 10.0 SW 52 SW 1967 53 6.7 75 105 185 131 13 33 23 11 48 140 7 a Length of record, years, based on January data. Other months may be for more or fewer years if there have been breaks in the record.

b Climatological standard normals (1931

-1960) c Less than one half.

d Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

e Trace, an amount too small to measure.

f at Alaskan stations.

g Figures instead of letters in a direction column indicate direction in tens of degrees from true North; i.e., 09 - East, 18 - South, 27 - West, 36 - North, and 00 - Calm. Resultant wind is the vector sum of wind directions and speeds divided by the number of observations. If figures appear in the direction column under "Fastest Mile" the corresponding speeds are fastest observed 1

-minute values.

h For period May 1966 through current year.

i To eight compass points only.

Below zero temperatures are preceded by a minus sign. The prevailing direction for wind in the Normals, Means, and Extremes table is from records through 1963.

Unless otherwise indicated, dimensional units used in this bulletin are: temperature in ºF; precipitation, including snowfall in in.; wind movement in mph; and relative humidity in percent. Heating degree day totals are the sums of negative departures of average daily temperatures from 65ºF. Sleet was included in snowfall totals beginning with July 1948. The term "Ice Pellets" includes solid grains of ice (sleet) and particles consisting of snow pellets encased in a thin layer of ice. Heavy fog reduces visibility to 1/4 mile or less.

Sky cover is expressed in a range of 0 for no clouds or obscuring phenomena to 10 for complete sky cover. The number of clear days is based on averaqe cloudiness 0

-3, partly cloudy days 4

-7, and cloudy days 8

-10 tenths.

Solar radiation data are the averages of direct and diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface. The langley denotes 1 g/cal/cm

2.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-3 Month DETROIT, MICHIGAN CITY AIRPORT NORMALS, MEANS, AND EXTREMES Temperature Normal heating degree days (base 65 O) Precipitation Relative Humidity Wind g Percent possible sunshineh Mean sky cover sunrise to sunseth Mean number of days Average daily solar radiation (langleys)

Normal Extremes Normal total Maximum monthly Year Minimum monthly Year Maximum in 24 hr Year Snow, Ice Pellets hr 01 hr 07 hr 13 hr 19 Mean speed Prevailing direction Fastest Mile Sunrise to Sunset h Precipitation .01 in. or more Snow, ice pellets 1.0. in or more Thunderstorms Heavy Fog Temperatures Maximum Minimum Daily maximum Daily minimum Monthly Record highest Year Record lowest Year Mean total Maximum monthly Year Maximum in 24 hr Year Speed Direction Year Clear Partly cloudy Cloudy 90° and abovef 32° and below 32° and below 0° and below (Local time)

(a) (b) (b) (b) 39 39 (b (b) 35 35 35 37 37 32 35 39 35 39 39 14 6 6 32 32 32 32 32 35 35 39 39 39 39 39 39 J 33.0 20.7 26.9 67 1950 -13 1963 1181 2.05 4.38 1950 0.23 1961 1.63 1960 8.1 21.1 1939 8.4 1957 75 79 69 74 11.5 W 40 26 1971 32 7.8 4 6 21 13 3 (c) 2 0 16 28 1 F 33.9 20.4 27.2 68 1944 -16 1934 1058 2.08 4.95 1938 0.10 1969 2.43 1950 7.6 15.8 1965 10.0 1965 76 79 65 71 11.5 NW 40 23 1971 d 43 7.3 4 7 17 12 3 1 1 0 13 26 1 M 42.3 27.3 34.8 82 1945 -1 1943 936 2.42 4.40 1938 0.47 1958 1.85 1949 5.4 15.5 1954 9.8 1934 74 78 60 66 11.5 NW 40 23 1972 49 7.0 5 8 18 13 2 1 1 0 5 22 (c) A 56.4 38.8 47.6 87 1942 d 14 1954 522 3.00 6.89 1947 0.74 1946 2.94 1947 1.2 6.8 1943 4.2 1942 71 74 53 58 11.1 NW 37 29 1967 52 6.8 6 8 16 12 (c) 3 1 0 (c) 8 0 M 68.6 49.4 59.0 93 1962 d 30 1966 d 220 3.53 8.05 1943 0.58 1934 2.53 1948 (e) 0.1 1954 0.1 1954 71 71 51 56 9.8 S 33 35 1972 d 59 6.4 7 10 14 12 0 4 (c) 1 0 (c) 0 J 79.1 60.3 69.7 104 1934 38 1969 d 42 2.83 6.58 1960 1.01 1959 3.53 1968 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 74 53 57 9.0 S 40 28 1971 d 65 6.0 7 12 11 11 0 6 (c) 4 0 0 0 J 83.9 64.8 74.4 105 1934 42 1972 0 2.82 7.05 1969 0.81 1936 2.80 1957 0.0 0.0 0.0 75 75 51 55 8.2 S 40 28 1966 70 5.3 9 13 9 9 0 6 (c) 6 0 0 0 A 81.9 63.6 72.8 101 1936 43 1934 0 2.86 7.51 1940 1.07 1936 3.65 1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 78 80 53 60 8.1 N 46 30 1968 65 5.4 10 12 9 9 0 5 1 4 0 0 0 S 74.2 56.0 65.1 100 1953 d 32 1942 87 2.44 5.90 1936 0.53 1969 2.56 1959 0.0 0.0 0.0 79 8 3 54 64 8.9 S 36 14 1971 d 61 5.4 10 10 10 9 0 3 1 1 0 (c) 0 O 62.8 44.7 53.8 92 1963 24 1972 d 360 2.63 7.80 1954 0.50 1964 3.72 1954 (e) 1.0 1943 1.0 1943 77 7 1 55 66 9.5 S 25 29 1969 56 5.6 10 9 12 9 0 1 1 (c) 0 2 0 N 47.1 33.7 40.4 81 1950 5 1958 738 2.21 4.14 1948 0.57 1939 2.18 1951 2.5 9.2 1950 5.6 1951 76 79 64 70 11.3 SW 30 24 1970 35 7.5 4 7 19 11 1 (c) 1 0 2 13 0 D 35.7 24.1 29.9 66 1971 -5 1960 1088 2.08 4.60 1957 0.43 1943 2.45 1965 6.8 24.0 1951 6.8 1951 77 79 70 74 11.3 SW 43 21 1971 32 7.7 4 6 21 13 2 (c) 2 0 12 25 (c) July Feb. May Feb. Oct. Dec. Feb. Aug. YR 58.2 42.0 50.1 105 1934 -16 1934 6232 30.95 8.05 1943 0.10 1969 3.72 1954 31.6 24.0 1951 10.0 1965 75 78 58 64 10.1 S 46 30 1968 54 6.5 80 108 177 131 11 32 11 15 48 125 2 a Length of record, years, based on January data. Other months may be for more or fewer years if there have been breaks in the record.

b Climatological standard normals (1931

-1960). c Less than one half.

d Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

e Trace, an amount too small to measure.

f at Alaskan stations.

g Figures instead of letters in a direction column indicate direction in tens of degrees from true North; i.e., 09 - East, 18 - South, 27 - West, 36 - North, and 00 - Calm. Resultant wind is the vector sum of wind directions and speeds divided by the number of observations. If figures appear in the direction column under "Fastest Mile" the corresponding speeds are fastest observed 1

-minute values.

h Data accumulated through 1965.

i To eight compass points only.

Means and extremes above are from existing and comparable exposures. Annual extremes have been exceeded at other sites in the locality as follows: Lowest temperature

-24 in Decem ber 1872; maximum monthly precipitation 8.76 in July 1878; minimum monthly precipitation 0.04 in February 1887; maximum precipitation in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 4.75 in July 1925; maximum monthly snowfall 38.4 in February 1908; maximum snowfall in 24 hours2.777778e-4 days <br />0.00667 hours <br />3.968254e-5 weeks <br />9.132e-6 months <br /> 24.5 in April 1886; fastest mile of wind 95 from Northwest in June 1890.

Below zero temperatures are preceded by a minus sign.

The prevailing direction for wind in the Normals, Means, and Extremes table is from records through 1963.

Unless otherwise indicated, dimensional units used in this bulletin are: temperature in ºF; precipitation, including snowfall, in in.; wind movement in mph; and relative humidity in percent. Heating degree day totals are the sums of negative departures of average daily temperatures from 65ºF.Cooling degree day totals are the sums of positive departures of average daily temperatures from from 65°F.

Sleet was included in snowfall totals beginning with July 1948. The term "Ice Pellets" includes solid grains of ice (sleet) and particles consisting of snow pellets encased in a thin layer of ice. Heavy fog reduces visibility to 1/4 mile or less.

Sky cover is expressed in a range of 0 for no clouds or obscuring phenomena to 10 for complete sky cover. The number of clear days is based on average cloudiness 0

-3, partly cloudy days 4

-7, and cloudy days 8

-10 tenths.

Solar radiation data are the averages of direct and diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface. The langley denotes 1 g/cal/cm

2.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-4 Month TOLEDO, OHIO NORMALS, MEANS, AND EXTREMES Temperature Normal heating degree days (base 65°) Precipitation Relative Humidity Windg Percent possible sunshine Mean sky cover sunrise to sunset Mean number of days Average daily solar radiation (langleys)

Normal Extremes Normal total Maximum monthly Year Minimum monthly Year Maximum in 24 hr Year Snow, Ice Pellets hr 01 hr 07 hr 13 hr 19 Mean speed Prevailing direction Fastest Mile Sunrise to Sunset Precipitation .01 in. or more Snow, ice pellets 1.0 in or more Thunderstorms Heavy Fog Temperatures Maximum Minimum Daily maximum Daily minimum Monthly Record highest Year Record lowest Year Mean total Maximum monthly Year Maximum in 24 hr Year Speed Directionh Year Clear Partly cloudy Cloudy 90° and abovef 32° and below 32° and below 0° and below (Local time)

(a) (b) (b) (b) 17 17 (b) (b) 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 8 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 17 J 34.1 18.4 26.3 62 196 7d -17 197 2d 1200 2.33 4.61 1965 0.27 1961 1.78 1959 8.8 14.2 1970 6.6 1957 72 78 69 73 10.9 WSW 47 W 197 2d 45 7.4 5 7 19 13 3 (c) 2 0 17 29 4 F 35.7 18.8 27.3 68 1957 -14 1967 1056 1.88 3.13 1960 0.27 1969 1.35 1959 7.8 14.4 1967 7.4 1967 72 78 65 70 10.9 WSW 56 SW 1967 47 7.3 4 7 17 11 2 (c) 2 0 12 27 2 M 44.7 25.6 35.2 80 1963 -1 1960 924 2.26 4.88 1964 0.58 1958 1.56 1964 6.9 11.6 1964 7.5 1962 73 81 61 66 11.0 WSW 56 W 1957d 50 7.4 5 7 19 14 2 2 2 0 5 25 (c) A 58.4 35.4 46.9 87 1960 11 1964 543 2.77 4.94 1961 0.88 1962 2.39 1956 1.9 12.0 19 57 9.8 1957 76 80 55 59 10.9 E 72 SW 1956 54 6.9 6 7 17 13 1 5 1 0 (c) 11 0 M 70.4 46.1 58.3 95 1962 26 1968 242 3.04 5.13 1968 0.96 1964 1.96 1970 (e) (e) 1966d (e) 196 6d 76 79 51 56 10.0 WSW 45 W 1957 63 6.3 6 11 14 12 0 3 1 1 0 2 0 J 80.3 56.3 68.3 99 1971 32 1972 60 3.79 4.86 1960 1.89 1964 2.50 1956 0.0 0.0 0.0 82 82 54 58 8.4 SW 50 W 1969 65 6.0 7 11 12 10 0 7 1 4 0 (c) 0 J 85.1 60.2 72.7 96 196 6d 43 197 2d 0 2.59 6.75 1969 1.58 1964 4.39 1969 0.0 0.0 0.0 84 86 55 61 7.5 WSW 54 NW 1970 68 5.8 7 14 10 10 0 8 1 4 0 0 0 A 83.0 58.8 70.9 98 1964 37 1965 16 3.33 8.47 1965 0.81 1967 2.42 1972 0.0 0.0 0.0 86 89 57 65 7.3 SW 47 W 1965 68 5.5 9 12 10 8 0 6 2 4 0 0 0 S 75.5 51.3 63.4 95 1960 29 1961 117 2.13 8.10 1972 0.58 1963 3.97 1972 (e) (e) 1967 (e) 1967 86 90 57 70 7.8 SSW 47 NW 1969 62 5.9 8 10 12 10 0 4 2 1 0 (c) 0 O 63.8 40.3 52.1 91 1963 16 1965 406 2.39 3.72 1959 0.28 1964 1.71 1957 (e) 0.2 1972d 0.2 197 2d 81 85 55 68 8.7 WSW 40 SW 1956 59 5.8 9 10 12 8 0 1 2 (c) 0 6 0 N 47.3 29.8 38.6 78 1968 2 1958 792 2.04 4.63 1966 0.77 1964 2.06 1969 3.6 17.9 1966 8.3 1966 81 83 67 74 10.3 WSW 65 SW 1957 39 7.7 4 7 19 11 1 (c) 2 0 3 18 0 D 35.8 20.8 28.3 67 1971 -11 1960 1138 1.95 6.81 1967 0.54 1958 3.53 1967 7.7 19.0 1969 8.0 1969 82 83 73 78 10.5 SW 45 SW 1971d 36 7.8 3 7 21 14 3 (c) 2 0 12 27 2 Jun. Jan. Aug Feb. Jul. Dec. Apr. Apr. YR 59.5 38.5 49.0 99 1971 -17 1972 d 6494 30.50 8.47 1965 0.27 1969 d 4.39 1969 36.7 19.0 1969 9.8 1957 79 83 60 67 9.5 WSW 72 SW 1956 56 6.7 73 110 182 134 12 40 19 4 49 146 8 a Length of record, years, based on January data. Other months may be for more or fewer years if there have been breaks in the record.

b Climatological standard normals (1931

-1960). c Less than one half.

d Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

e Trace, an amount too small to measure.

f at Alaskan stations.

g Figures instead of letters in a direction column indicate direction in tens of degrees from true North; i.e., 09 - East, 18 - South, 27 - West, 36. - North, and 00 - Calm. Resultant wind is the vector sum of wind directions and speeds divided by the number of observations. If figures appear in the direction column under "Fastest Mile" the corresponding speeds are fastest observed 1

-minute values.

h To eight compass points only.

Means and extremes above are from existing and comparable exposures. Annual extremes have been exceeded at other sites in the locality as follows: Highest temperature 105° in July 1936; maximum monthly precipitation 8.49 in October 1881; minimum monthly precipitation 0.04 in November 1904

maximum precipitation in 24 hr 5.98 in September 1818; maximum monthly snowfall 26.2 in January 1918; maximum snowfall in 24 hr 19.0 in February 1900; fastest mile 87 in March 1948.

Below zero temperatures are preceded by a minus sign.

The prevailing direction for wind in the Normals, Means, and Extremes table is from records through 1963.

Unless otherwise indicated, dimensional units used in this bulletin are: temperature in ºF; precipitation, including snowfall, in in.; wind movement in mph; and relative humidity in percent. Heating degree day totals are the sums of negative departures of average daily temperatures from 65ºF.Cooling degree day totals are the sums of positive departures of daily temperatures from 65°F.

Sleet was included in snowfall totals beginning with July 1948. The term "Ice P ellets" includes solid grains of ice (sleet) and particles consisting of snow pellets encased in a thin layer of ice. Heavy fog reduces visibility to 1/4 mile or less.

Sky cover is expressed in a range of 0 for no clouds or obscuring phenomena to 10 for complete sky cover. The number of clear days is based on average cloudiness 0

-3, partly cloudy days 4

-7, and cloudy days 8

-10 tenths.

Solar radiation data are the averages of direct and diffuse radiation on a horizontal surface. The langley denotes 1 g/cal/cm 2.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-5 Latitude CLIMATOLOGICAL

SUMMARY

MONROE, MICHIGAN (MEANS AND EXTREMES FOR PERIOD 1940-1969) 41° 54' Longitude 83° 22' Station Monroe, Michigan, Monroe County Elev. (Ground) 582 feet Month Temperature (°F) Mean degree days

    • Precipitation Totals (inches)

Mean number of days Month Means Extremes Mean Greatest daily Year Snow, Ice Pellets Precip. .10 inch or more Temperatures Max. Min. Daily maximum Daily minimum Monthly Record highest Year Record lowest Year Mean Maximum monthly Year Greatest daily Year 90° and above 32° and below 32° and below 0° and below (a) 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 JANUARY 32.9 18.5 25.7 70 1950 -16 1953 1218 1.95 1.74 1959 6.6 17.8 1943 7.0 1957 5 0 15 29 2 JANUARY FEBRUA R Y 35.3 19.8 27.6 70 1944 - 8 1951 1057 1.73 1.74 1950 7.5 20.3 1962 12.8 1965 5 0 11 26 1 FEBRUARY MARCH 44.1 27.1 35.6 81 1945 - 2 1943 911 2.39 1.99 1954 6.0 23.5 1954 9.0 1954 6 0 4 23

  • MARCH APRIL 58.0 38.2 48.1 91 1942 16 1954 507 3.13 2.25 1965 . 9 12.0 1957 8.5 1957 7 *
  • 8 0 APRIL MAY 69.0 48.7 53.9 95 1952+ 29 1966 233 3.41 2.52 1968 T .3 1954 .3 1954 7 1 0 1 0 MAY JUNE 79.9 69.2 69.6 100 1944 39 1949 42 3.47 2.74 1944 0 0 0 7 4 0 0 0 JUNE JULY 83.9 62.9 73.4 102 1941+ 43 1945 3 2.80 2.57 1948 0 0 0 5 6 0 0 0 JULY AUGUST 82.3 61.1 71.7 101 1964 42 1965 12 3.16 2.12 1964 0 0 0 6 4 0 0 0 AUGUST SEPTEMBER 75.6 54.2 64.9 100 1954 30 1942 72 2.40 2.20 1959 0 0 0 5 2 0
  • 0 SEPTEMBER OCTOBER 64.9 43.6 54.4 91 1951 23 1952 344 2.58 2.67 1949 T T 1969 T 1969 5
  • 0 3 0 OCTOBER NOVEMBER 48.9 33.3 41.1 81 1950 1 1958 717 2.11 1.66 1968 2.5 10.4 1966 4.0 1966 5 0 1 14 0 NOVEMBER DECEMBER 36.5 22.7 29.5 64 1966+ - 8 1960 1097 2.08 2.75 1957 7.2 27.0 1951 8.0 1951 5 0 11 26 1 DECEMBER July Jan. Dec. Mar. Feb. Year 59.3 40.8 50.1 102 1941+ -1 6 1963 6213 31.29 2.75 1967 30.7 28.5 1954 12.8 1965 68 17 42 130 4 Year (a) Average length of record, years

. + Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

T Trace, an amount too small to measure.

  • Less than one half.
    • Base 65

°F (H. C. S. Thom, Monthly Weather Review

, January 1954)

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-6 Latitude CLIMATOLOGICAL

SUMMARY

WILLIS, MICHIGAN (MEANS AND EXTREMES FOR PERIOD 1940-1969) 41° 05' Longitude 83° 35' Station WILLIS, MICHIGAN, WASHTENAW COUNTY Elev. (Ground) 660 feet Month Temperature (°F)

Mean degree days

    • Precipitation Totals (inches)

Mean number of days Month Means Extremes Mean Greatest daily Year Snow, Ice Pellets Precip. .10 inch or more Temperatures Max. Min. Daily maximum Daily minimum Monthly Record highest Year Record lowest Year Mean Maximum monthly Year Greatest daily Year 90° and above 32 and below 32° and below 0° and below (a) 33 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 30 33 JANUARY 31.4 15.6 23.5 69 1950 -18 1957 1287 1.95 1.52 1960 7.9 19.5 1943 5.0 1968+ 5 0 17 30 4 JANUARY FEBRUARY 34.0 17.2 25.6 67 1944 -14 1963 1113 1.71 1.35 1949 7.5 19.5 1962 7.5 1950 5 0 12 27 2 FEBRUARY MARCH 43.5 25.1 34.3 80 1915 -13 1943 952 2.46 1.84 1954 6.4 21.5 1954 9.0 1956 6 0 5 25 1 MARCH APRIL 54.0 35.5 46.8 85 1942 12 1964 546 3.22 2.48 1956 1.3 8.3 1957 4.0 1947 8 0

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

+ Also on earlier dates, months, or years.

T Trace, an amount too small to measure.

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

, January 1954)

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-7 Month MONTHLY MEANS OF DAILY AFTERNOON ATMOSPH ERIC MIXING DEPTHS (FLINT, MICHIGAN, 1960-1964) Depth (m) Depth (ft)

January 700 2300 February 780 2560 March 1110 3650 April 1680 5500 May 1640 5380 June 1680 5510 July 1820 5970 August 1580 5180 September 1350 4430 October 1340 4400 November 910 2990 December 800 2620 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-8 Sensor Height AVERAGE WIND SPEEDS AND FREQUENCY OF CALMS FOR THE FERMI SITE, 100

-FT TOWER; DETROIT CITY AIRPORT; TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT; AND FERMI SITE 60

-M TOWER Data Period Average Speed (mph) Frequency of Calms (percent) Fermi site - 10 m 60-m 1 June 1974 - 31 May 1975 8.85 0.4 aFermi site - 60 m tower 1 June 1974 - 31 May 1975 14.64 0.6a Fermi site - 100 ft 1 December 1956 - 30 November 1959 12.4 0.30 bDetroit City Airport - 58 ft 1956 - 1959 10.3 1.10b Toledo Express Airport - 20 ft 1950 - 1955 11.01 1.38b a Calms defined as wind speeds b Calms defined as wind speeds

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-9 (Instrument Height - 10 M) WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE, 60-METER TOWER 1 June 1974 to 31 May 1975 Number of Occurrences by Direction Hours of Persistence N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Total Cumulative Percentage 1 105 94 79 85 85 92 120 122 129 137 138 150 142 125 123 127 100.000 2 47 40 29 38 30 26 61 57 55 62 57 70 53 56 61 36 48.168 3 19 10 22 13 16 29 25 26 24 30 32 38 21 26 31 20 26.406 4 9 9 12 12 9 11 12 12 13 22 20 22 16 15 14 7 15.720 5 3 1 7 7 3 3 3 3 10 16 16 13 11 5 7 4 9.706 6 1 2 2 4 5 6 8 4 4 7 7 8 6 7 4 1 6.573 7 1 1 3 4 4 2 5 3 5 6 2 6 3 4 2 3 4.448 8 0 0 1 1 0 4 3 1 3 4 2 1 1 0 4 1 2.937 9 1 0 2 3 1 0 0 2 0 4 0 2 2 4 1 1 2.21 0 10 0 0 2 2 0 1 3 1 0 2 5 2 0 3 1 0 1.566 11 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 3 1 0 1 0 0 0.951 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.727 13 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0.643 14 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.531 15 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.448 16 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.392 17 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0.364 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.308 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0.28 0 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0.196 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0.112 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.084 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 25 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 26 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 27 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 28 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 29 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 30 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.056 31 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.056 32 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.028 (Instrument Height - 60 M)

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-9 1 June 1974 to 31 May 1975 WIND DIRECTION PERSISTENCE, 60-METER TOWER Number of Occurrences by Direction Hours of Persistence N NNE NE ENE E ESE SE SSE S SSW SW WSW W WNW NW NNW Total Cumulative Percentage 1 68 72 66 81 84 100 111 126 112 129 156 150 124 101 89 66 100.000 2 26 25 39 43 37 35 39 71 62 79 65 52 52 55 42 28 52.011 3 8 15 23 16 16 21 26 31 25 35 36 28 33 26 18 22 29.997 4 11 4 14 8 17 12 9 14 14 33 26 21 11 19 20 10 18.873 5 3 5 7 9 3 3 5 4 6 16 12 12 5 10 4 1 11.741 6 1 7 6 3 3 5 2 3 9 12 15 10 9 7 4 2 8.659 7 1 2 5 5 5 2 4 4 5 7 9 6 6 3 3 4 5.782 8 2 1 2 2 1 0 1 3 1 3 7 3 4 2 1 1 3.698 9 0 0 3 0 0 1 0 2 2 3 2 3 0 0 2 1 2.7 0 0 10 0 1 3 0 1 0 1 1 3 2 5 3 0 2 2 0 2.143 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 3 1 2 0 0 1.438 12 0 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 0 4 2 2 2 1 0 1 1.203 13 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0.704 14 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.528 15 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0.440 16 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0.323 17 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 0.235 18 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.176 19 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.147 20 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.117 21 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.088 22 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.088 23 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0.088 24 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0.059 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-10 SEASONAL AND ANNUAL FREQUENCES OF STABILITY CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED WIND SPEEDS FOR DETROIT METROPOLITAN AIRPORT AND TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT Detroit Metropolitan Airport (1958 - 1962) A B C D E F G Springa % 0.23 3.39 11.70 61.81 12.42 8.50 1.95 mph 5.40 7.00 10.40 13.60 9.10 5.90 3.30 Summera % 1.39 8.89 18.56 39.95 11.89 14.48 4.84 mph 5.10 7.00 10.00 11.20 8.40 5.80 3.30 Falla % 0.11 3.24 9.67 55.90 13.03 13.48 4.56 mph 0.00 5.90 8.40 11.80 8.60 5.80 3.50 Wintera % 0.02 0.92 4.11 74.41 10.89 7.42 2.23 mph 0.00 4.00 7.80 12.90 9.20 5.60 2.90 Annual % 0.44 4.13 11.05 57.95 12.06 10.98 3.39 mph 5.20 6.80 9.60 12.50 8.90 5.80 3.30 TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT (1959 - 1963) A B C D E F G Springa % 0.41 4.26 11.52 58.04 9.34 10.85 5.59 mph 5.00 6.60 9.70 12.60 8.30 5.50 3.00 Summera % 2.34 12.80 20.34 30.34 6.85 15.20 12.13 mph 5.00 6.60 8.50 9.70 7.10 5.20 3.06 Falla % 0.06 4.05 11.56 50.29 10.23 14.52 9.20 mph 0.00 5.60 7.80 10.90 8.10 5.40 3.04 Wintera % 0.00 0.37 5.46 72.06 9.81 8.47 3.84 mph - 4.30 7.60 11.80 8.90 5.50 3.07 Annuala % 0.71 5.40 12.26 52.58 9.05 12.27 7.76 mph 5.00 6.30 8.50 11.40 8.20 5.40 3.01 a Seasons Spring = March, April, May; Summer = June, July, August; Fall = September, October, November; Winter = December, January, February.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-11 - 60 M) MONTHLY AND ANNUAL FREQUENCIES OF STABILITY CATEGORIES AND ASSOCIATED WIND SPEEDS FOR 10

-METER LEVEL FERMI SITE DATA 1 June 1974 to 31 May 1975 A B C D E F G June 74 Total % mph 8.93 18.97 2.38 8.28 2.68 9.53 21.13 9.09 51.04 9.41 11.16 6.54 2.68 4.39 100 8.82 July 74 % mph 12.05 8.17 0.57 6.46 1.29 9.32 19.23 8.51 46.92 8.86 11.48 5.43 8.46 4.10 100 7.91 Aug 74 % mph 25.96 7.74 2.61 8.10 2.47 8.01 23.08 8.22 35.71 7.75 6.87 5.01 3.30 4.74 100 7.58 Sept 74 % mph 2.46 11.39 0.49 7.76 0.66 7.53 20.85 10.33 55.5 0 8.78 9.03 6.05 11.00 5.83 100 8.58 Oct 74 % mph 40.18 9.83 4.68 8.79 2.34 9.25 10.45 9.01 15.68 7.69 15.14 6.37 11.53 5.63 100 8.34 Nov 74 % mph 0.42 7.08 0.00 0.00 0.14 12.20 7.38 10.41 75.77 9.70 11.00 6.87 5.29 4.21 100 9.14 Dec 74 % mph 1.43 9.95 0.57 13.08 0.86 7.25 7.73 7.59 76.82 8.57 10.01 6.32 2.58 3.96 100 8.18 Jan 75 % mph 2.86 8.27 0.82 8.14 1.77 14.09 61.04 10.48 25.20 9.85 7.08 9.71 1.23 7.32 100 10.21 Feb 75 % mph 0.34 4.24 1.52 9.16 3.21 9.28 63.79 10.38 24.53 7.77 5.08 5.89 1.52 7.04 100 9.39 Mar 75 % mph 4.73 11.10 4.43 12.85 4.73 11.34 54.36 12.00 22.90 8.71 5.76 8.32 3.10 8.26 100 10.88 Apr 75 % mph 3.81 11.68 3.02 11.90 4.29 11.71 46.19 10.23 21.75 9.27 14.76 9.12 6.19 5.83 100 9.76 May 75 % mph 10.24 8.16 4.45 9.68 4.75 9.11 29.38 8.37 25.52 6.84 17.21 6.30 8.46 5.96 100 7.49 Annual % mph 9.17 8.95 2.08 9.94 2.40 10.08 30.29 10.04 40.46 8.79 10.31 6.82 5.30 5.41 100 8.86 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-12 100 ft - 25 ft) THREE YEAR

SUMMARY

OF TEMPERATURE LAPSE RATE DATA FOR THE FERMI SITE (1956-1959) Season Strong Vertical Temperature Gradients < - 0.98°C/100m or -5.4°F/1000 ft (%) Weak Vertical Temperature Gradients > - 0.98°C/100m or -5.4°F/1000 ft (%) Inversion (Temperature Increases with Height) (%)

Spring (March, April, May) 61.3 15.5 23.1 Summer (June, July, August) 38.0 27.3 34.8 Fall (September, October, November) 42.9 26.2 30.9 Winter (December, January, February) 40.6 35.5 23.8 ANNUAL 45.4 26.7 27.9 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09

a All units in °C TABLE 2.3-13 METEOROLOGICAL DATA ANALYSIS HOURLY TEMPERATURE aHours of Missing Data AVERAGE OVER A 24

-HR INTERVAL 10 - Meter 282 60 - Meter 211 Total No. of Observations 10 - Meter 8478 60 - Meter 8549 Hour 10-M 1 60-M 8.88 9.1 0 2 8.5 0 8.77 3 8.25 8.54 4 7.96 8.28 5 7.64 8.05 6 7.44 7.95 7 7.35 7.79 8 7.32 7.63 9 7.95 7.86 10 8.69 8.36 11 9.55 8.97 12 10.19 9.6 0 13 10.75 10.2 0 14 11.00 10.38 15 11.4 0 10.8 0 16 11.51 11.00 17 11.56 11.15 18 11.55 11.22 19 11.22 10.98 20 10.84 10.74 21 10.26 10.32 22 9.85 10.02 23 9.53 9.66 24 9.22 9.37 Minimum -19.3 0 -19.3 0 Maximum 34.89 34.8 0 Annual Average 9.52 9.45 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-14 PASQUILL CATEGORIES HOURLY STABILITY INDEX DISTRIBUTION 1 June 1974 to 31 May 1975 In Percent of Total Obs In Percent of Hourly Obs Hour A B C D E F G A B C D E F G 1 0.27 0.04 0.01 0.93 1.94 0.65 0.35 6.53 0.85 0.28 22.16 46.31 15.62 8.24 2 0.19 0.04 0.04 1.04 1.92 0.56 0.40 4.56 0.85 0.85 24.79 45.87 13.39 9.69 3 0.14 0.06 0.02 0.95 2.01 0.60 0.39 3.42 1.42 0.57 22.79 48.15 14.25 9.40 4 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.99 1.80 0.67 0.49 3.44 0.57 1.15 23.78 43.27 16.05 11.75 5 0.18 0.02 0.06 0.90 1.76 0.75 0.48 4.30 0.57 1.43 21.78 42.41 18.05 11.46 6 0.13 0.02 0.02 1.02 1.79 0.62 0.52 3.17 0.58 0.58 24.78 43.23 14.99 12.68 7 0.17 0.06 0.02 1.04 1.79 0.52 0.56 4.01 1.43 0.57 24.93 42.98 12.61 13.47 8 0.21 0.02 0.08 1.08 1.89 0.5 0 0.30 5.23 0.58 2.03 26.45 46.22 12.21 7.27 9 0.44 0.10 0.07 1.30 1.83 0.23 0.17 10.66 2.31 1.73 31.41 44.38 5.48 4.03 10 0.67 0.06 0.10 1.51 1.60 0.12 0.11 16.05 1.43 2.29 36.39 38.40 2.87 2.58 11 0.64 0.15 0.20 1.58 1.39 0.11 0.07 15.47 3.72 4.87 38.11 33.52 2.58 1.72 12 0.81 0.13 0.14 1.61 1.23 0.12 0.05 19.83 3.21 3.50 39.36 30.03 2.92 1.17 13 0.82 0.25 0.27 1.36 1.21 0.12 0.04 20.12 6.12 6.71 33.53 29.74 2.92 0.87 14 0.81 0.26 0.24 1.44 1.26 0.08 0.06 19.48 6.30 5.73 34.67 30.37 2.01 1.43 15 0.79 0.14 0.33 1.46 1.18 0.18 0.05 19.02 3.46 8.07 35.45 28.53 4.32 1.15 16 0.73 0.18 0.18 1.57 1.21 0.19 0.08 17.53 4.31 4.31 37.93 29.31 4.60 2.01 17 0.61 0.10 0.17 1.64 1.38 0.20 0.11 14.45 2.27 3.97 39.09 32.86 4.82 2.55 18 0.48 0.08 0.15 1.58 1.50 0.26 0.13 11.36 1.99 3.69 37.78 35.80 6.25 3.12 19 0.38 0.06 0.05 1.38 1.89 0.33 0.12 9.04 1.41 1.13 32.77 44.92 7.91 2.82 20 0.27 0.10 0.04 1.21 1.89 0.56 0.14 6.50 2.26 0.85 28.81 44.92 13.28 3.39 21 0.27 0.05 0.05 1.13 1.83 0.75 0.15 6.46 1.12 1.12 26.69 43.26 17.70 3.65 22 0.29 0.06 0.02 1.08 1.77 0.77 0.24 6.74 1.40 0.56 25.56 41.85 18.26 5.62 23 0.23 0.06 0.06 1.17 1.75 0.67 0.29 5.37 1.41 1.41 27.68 41.53 15.82 6.78 24 0.25 0.02 0.05 1.06 1.92 0.61 0.32 5.92 0.56 1.13 25.07 45.35 14.37 7.61 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-15 THREE YEAR

SUMMARY

OF TEMPERATURE LAPSE RATE (300 FT - 20 FT) DATA FOR THE WJBK

-TV TOWER (1956-1959) Inversions (Temperature Season Spring increasing with height) (percent)

(March, April, May) 23.0 Summer (June, July, August) 35.5 Fall (September, October, November) 33.1 Winter (December, January, February) 23.0 ANNUAL 28.6 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-16 PROBABILITY OF OCCURRENCE OF INVERSIONS a FOR A GIVEN LENGTH OF TIME AT FERMI SITE Probability (percent) That Inversion Persisted for Number of Hours of Persistence t 1 Periods Greater Than t 100.00 2 65.21 3 51.52 4 45.06 5 40.3 0 6 36.5 0 7 32.51 8 29.47 9 25.67 10 23.76 11 21.48 12 19.01 13 15.97 14 13.49 15 11.03 16 8.555 17 6.844 18 4.753 19 3.992 20 3.612 21 3.042 23 2.281 25 2.091 26 1.711 27 1.331 28 1.141 33 0.951 41 0.76 0 43 0.57 0 44 0.38 0 46 0.19 0 a From data from 60

-m tower, 1 June 1974 through 31 May 1975.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-17 THE DISTRIBUTION AND FREQUENCY OF PRECIPITATION BY WIND DIRECTION AND SPEED FOR THE FERMI SITE (1956 -1959) 100 - Ft Tower Wind Direction (June 74 - May 75) 60-M Tower Average Wind Speed (100 ft Level) During Precipitation (mph) Frequency With Respect to Precipitation Only (percent) Average Wind Speed (10-m Level) During Precipitation (mph) Frequency With Respect to Precipitation Only (percent)

NNE 12.5 4.1 7.5 7.6 NE 16.0 6.1 9.7 5.9 ENE 16.8 5.3 10.4 6.7 E 17.9 5.3 11.8 10.9 ESE 15.3 3.4 10.3 11.8 SE 14.4 3.2 10.2 5.0 SSE 13.3 3.9 9.5 8.4 S 12.5 5.3 11.7 5.9 SSW 12.6 7.3 13.6 5.0 SW 14.1 9.6 9.9 5.0 WSW 14.7 13.8 11.2 5.0 W 16.6 11.1 9.1 2.5 WNW 14.0 8.3 12.2 9.2 NW 12.5 6.4 7.4 5.9 NNW 12.9 5.1 4.2 1.7 N 11.2 3.4 8.3 3.4 CALM ---- 0.2 ---- ----

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-18 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE AND RELATIVE HUMIDITY

SUMMARY

FOR THE FERMI SITE, DETROIT CITY AIRPORT, AND TOLEDO EXPRESS AIRPORT (1 January 1972 to 31 December 1972)

Fermi Site (Langton Rd) Detroit Month Toledo Temperature

(°F) Relative Humidity (percent) Temperature

(°F) Relative Humidity (percent) Temperature (°F) Relative Humidity (percent) January 26 85 26 66 23 69 February 25 86 25 64 24 69 March 29 83 33 62 34 57 April 42 80 45 48 46 51 May 58 82 61 58 60 61 June 63 78 65 62 64 70 July 69 80 73 62 71 73 August 67 90 70 74 68 79 September 62 88 64 75 62 78 October 48 78 49 70 47 71 November 37 84 39 74 37 74 December 29 84 31 76 30 76 Annual 47 83 48 66 47 69 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-19 COMPARISON OF MONTHLY TEMPERATURE HIGH, LOW, AND AVERAGE BETWEEN FERMI 2 SITE DATA AND NATIONAL WEATHER BUREAU DATA COLLECTED AT THE NEAREST LOCATIONS FOR THE PERIOD JUNE 1974 THROUGH MAY 1975 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. Mar. Apr. May High 84.8 94.2 89.5 81.0 74.4 72.7 42.9 52.9 44.7 60.8 62.9 84.7 Fermi 2 Avg. 68.4 76.3 74.2 61.5 50.5 41.9 30.4 29.5 27.3 32.5 39.6 62.5 Low 47.0 52.0 55.0 34.5 24.3 15.9 11.3 8.6 -2.7 16.8 20.4 44.3 Monroe Sewage Plant 6.6 miles

NW High 88.0 100.0 93.0 89.0 81.0 76.0 44.0 57.0 53.0 68.0 70.0 93.0 Avg. 68.4 76.3 74.2 63.8 51.6 42.8 30.1 28.9 28.2 33.5 42.5 63.8 Low 47.0 52.0 55.0 34.0 24.0 15.0 11.0 7.0 -5.0 12.0 17.0 38.0 Willis 21.6 miles NW High 85.0 95.0 88.0 85.0 77.0 75.0 40.0 57.0 49.0 64.0 69.0 88.0 Avg. 65.0 70.7 69.1 57.7 48.2 39.2 26.9 27.5 26.7 32.3 40.7 62.2 Low 45.0 43.0 45.0 26.0 13.0 11.0 -2.0 4.0 -11.0 8.0 18.0 36.0 Detroit Metro Airport 20 miles North High 86.0 97.0 90.0 87.0 77.0 74.0 41.0 53.0 46.0 63.0 69.0 88.0 Avg. 65.9 72.5 72.3 59.7 48.8 40.6 28.6 28.3 27.5 32.5 40.9 62.8 Low 47.0 50.0 50.0 29.0 17.0 14.0 6.0 6.0 -6.0 10.0 19.0 40.0 Detroit City Airport 33.7 miles NNE High 89.0 97.0 89.0 87.0 79.0 75.0 44.0 57.0 50.0 66.0 70.0 91.0 Avg. 57.6 75.1 73.8 62.9 52.2 43.0 32.3 31.1 29.7 33.9 43.3 66.1 Low 48.0 52.0 58.0 34.0 28.0 19.0 21.0 10.0 4.0 15.0 21.0 42.0 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-20 METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM EQUIPMENT SPECIFICATIONS (33

-FT TOWER) Instrument Manufacturer Model Level Wind speed and direction Specifications Gill Model 35001 propeller vane 33 ft (10 m) Wind Direction Range:

360°, mechanical 342°, electrical Wind Speed Range:

variable 0-15 mph, 0-30 mph, 0-50 mph Threshold:

Vane - 0.3-0.5 mph Propeller - 0.4-0.7 mph Temperature and relative humidity Belfort Model 5-592 hygrothermograph Shelter (Base approximately 4-1/2 ft above ground level) Accuracy: Temperature: +1°F between -20°F to +100°F Humidity: +/-3% RH between 20% and 95%, +/-5% at extremes FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 3 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-21 WIND SPEED SENSORS: All Levels 60-M TOWER ANALOG/DIGITAL METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION (PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM)

Sensor: Climet Instruments model #WS-011-1. Wind speed transmitter and cup assembly. Distance constant:

5 ft maximum Threshold wind:

0.6 mph Accuracy: +/- 0.1% or 0.15 mph, whichever is greater Electronics:

Analog signal conditioner constructed by EG&G, Albuquerque..

Accuracy: +/- 0.1% full scale Recorder: Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #

ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter.

OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY: +/- 1% or 0.15 mph Recorder: (Backup) Esterline Angus Model #EAL1102S dual analog recorder Accuracy: +/- 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY:

+/- 1.04% or 0.38 mph, whichever is greater WIND DIRECTION SENSORS: All Levels Sensor: Climet Instruments model #

WD-012-03 wind direction transmitter and wind vane assembly. Distance constant:

1 m maximum Damping ratio: 0.4 standard Threshold:

0.75 mph Accuracy: +/- 3° Electronics:

Analog signal conditioner constructed by EG&G, Albuquerque Accuracy: +/- 0.10% full scale Recorder: Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #

ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter.

Accuracy: +/- 1/2 LSB FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 3 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-21 Recorder: (Backup) 60-M TOWER ANALOG/DIGITAL METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION (PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM)

Esterline Angus Model #EAL1102S dual analog recorder.

Accuracy: +/- 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY:

+/- 3.2° TEMPERATURE SENSORS: All Levels Sensors: Rosemount Engineering model #171BM platinum resistance thermometer. Linearity:

0.01% full scale Stability:

0.01°C per year Aspiration rate:

24 ft/sec flow over sensor Electronics:

Analog signal conditioner constructed by EG&G, Albuquerque.

Accuracy: +/- 0.10% full scale Recorder: Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #

ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter.

Accuracy: +/- 1/2 LSB Recorder:

(Backup) Esterline Angus Model #EAL1102S dual analog recorder.

Accuracy: +/- 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ABSOLUTE ACCURACY: +/- 0.2°C OVERALL SYSTEM DIFFERENCE ACCURACY:

+/- 0.1°C DEWPOINT SENSOR:

Sensor: Environmental Equipment Division of EG&G, model #110S-M dewpoint measuring set. Range: -80°F to +120°F Accuracy: +/- 0.5°F maximum Electronics:

Analog signal conditioner constructed by EG&G, Albuquerque.

Accuracy: +/- 0.1% full scale

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 3 of 3 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-21 Recorder: 60-M TOWER ANALOG/DIGITAL METEOROLOGICAL SYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION (PREOPERATIONAL PROGRAM)

Digital representation of Datel Systems, Inc. model #

ADC-E 3-digit (BCD) analog to digital converter.

Recorder: (Backup) Esterline Angus Model #EAL1102S dual analog recorder Accuracy: +/- 0.25% full scale OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY:

+/- 0.35°C PRECIPITATION SENSOR:

Sensor: Fisher & Porter Company model #35-1559 EA10, precipitation gage recorder.

Range: 0 to 19.5 in. precipitation Accuracy: +/- 0.015 in. of range span Sensitivity:

0.025 in. response OVERALL SYSTEM ACCURACY:

+/- 0.1 in.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-22 COMPARISON BETWEEN MANUAL LY READ ANALOG AVERAGES AND DIGITAL AVERAGES FOR ALL PARAMETERS AT THE 10-METER LEVEL AND THE TEMPERATURE AT THE 60

-METER LEVEL ON THE 60-METER TOWER Temperature at 10

-m level Dewpoint Temperature at 60-m level Wind Speed at 10

-m Level Date Wind Direction at 10-m Level Time Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog 1974 June 15 04:00 18.46 18.42 15.71 15.74 18.41 18.45 12.6 12.7 198.4 198.4 June 15 14:00 18.83 18.84 16.33 16.31 18.93 18.96 12.5 12.5 191.8 192.4 June 25 03:00 11.45 11.46 6.23 6.25 11.98 11.93 6.7 6.8 341.3 341.5 June 29 09:00 19.92 19.96 14.44 14.40 20.20 20.28 5.7 5.7 231.6 230.9 July 10 16:00 23.40 23.41 21.12 21.19 23.20 23.22 12.2 12.2 042.3 042.6 July 14 03:00 25.35 25.31 16.37 16.37 25.62 25.69 7.4 7.4 244.4 244.0 July 24 06:00 14.06 14.05 13.86 13.83 17.20 17.25 2.1 2.1 319.5 319.3 July 29 09:00 24.06 24.00 19.46 19.46 23.52 23.51 6.9 6.8 274.6 274.7 August 8 13:00 23.35 23.39 18.23 18.22 22.63 22.68 8.8 8.8 137.3 136.4 August 11 02:00 23.08 23.07 19.38 19.31 23.01 23.04 11.7 11.7 159.8 160.9 August 22 02:00 20.53 20.53 16.06 16.01 20.45 20.46 7.7 7.8 057.4 056.2 August 25 02:00 16.85 16.86 14.14 14.12 18.45 18.42 5.8 5.7 027.6 027.2 September 11 a13:00 25.51 25.88 18.98 19.22 26.12 26.07 9.9 10.1 207.3 204.6 September 11 15:00 26.28 26.21 19.35 19.24 25.99 25.75 11.9 11.7 211.9 208.7 October 26 14:00 15.95 16.43 -03.15 -02.97 15.75 15.62 13.2 12.8 279.7 280.6 October 28 12:00 03.64 03.53 06.90 06.88 16.12 16.10 7.3 7.1 127.7 127.4 November 6 04:00 04.09 03.86 02.51 02.40 04.13 04.22 5.5 5.2 287.2 282.8 November 10 14:00 09.51 09.28 06.54 06.59 09.24 09.21 9.4 9.3 127.3 122.8 November 22 20:00 04.14 04.13 01.28 01.33 04.5 04.5 5.9 5.6 244.7 239.9 November 24 10:00 12.23 12.14 11.20 11.18 11.89 11.89 11.2 10.9 255.2 249.9 December 4 17:00 03.79 -03.58 -08.95 -08.58 -03.45 -03.72 3.5 3.1 281.3 279.2 December 9 11:00 -05.20 -05.20 -09.68 -09.22 -05.18 -05.37 12.3 11.9 285.1 282.6 December 19 11:00 0.61 00.64 -00.91 00.90 00.31 0.18 12.0 12.1 253.2 248.8 December 23 12:00 04.80 04.57 00.53 00.86 05.30 05.10 9.1 8.8 249.3 245.7 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-22 COMPARISON BETWEEN MANUAL LY READ ANALOG AVERAGES AND DIGITAL AVERAGES FOR ALL PARAMETERS AT THE 10-METER LEVEL AND THE TEMPERATURE AT THE 60

-METER LEVEL ON THE 60-METER TOWER Temperature at 10

-m level Dewpoint Temperature at 60-m level Wind Speed at 10

-m Level Date Wind Direction at 10-m Level Time Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog Digital Analog 1975 January 3 10:00 1.48 1.58 0.25 0.32 1.04 1.01 13.3 13.0 226.7 222.7 January 6 14:00 0.48 0.53 0.23 0.25 0.18 0.21 10.7 10.9 180.0 177.8 January 12 16:00 -6.15 -6.17 -16.66 -16.76 -6.83 -6.86 9.0 8.8 246.0 243.7 January 17 03:00 -7.60 -7.36 -14.26 -14.56 -7.96 -7.76 1.4 1.4 299.1 297.1 February 5 16:00 0.23 -0.15 -0.09 0.05 -0.22 -1.03 6.6 6.1 042.9 038.7 February 10 03:00 -17.25 -16.87 -22.99 -22.61 -17.22 -16.89 4.9 4.5 248.6 249.2 February 14 23:00 -4.21 -4.52 -08.9 -9.13 -4.62 -4.74 6.5 6.0 115.5 110.3 February 15 01:00 -4.11 -4.40 -8.38 -8.36 -4.48 -4.61 7.7 7.2 118.6 117.0 March 13 23:00 -2.49 -2.62 -9.76 -9.63 -2.97 -3.14 14.3 13.8 050.9 047.3 March 14 01:00 -2.55 2.73 -12.77 -12.26 -3.07 -3.41 16.8 16.3 065.7 063.1 March 17 10:00 0.02 0.08 -1.79 -1.92 -0.73 0.94 5.8 6.0 046.4 0 42.0 March 24 03:00 3.39 4.22 1.38 1.71 2.73 3.10 18.8 18.5 079.6 0 81.0 April 4 22:00 -1.91 -2.11 -11.72 -11.32 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A April 5 04:00 -6.14 -6.13 -11.84 -11.43 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A April 10 18:00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.48 3.61 b12.5 12.4 060.2 056.7 April 11 13:00 N/A N/A N/A N/A 2.86 3.02b 7.2 7.8 159.1 156.2 April 25 19:00 8.07 8.01 2.19 2.40 7.75 7.90 8.3 7.5 358.3 355.0 April 26 01:00 5.13 4.72 0.60 0.71 5.92 6.44 3.2 3.4 062.5 061.2 May 17 09:00 11.13 c11.01 9.99 9.73c 12.33 12.32 8.1 8.0 080.9 074.3 May 19 23:00 22.48 22.83 14.31 14.56 19.39 19.00 d10.4 10.4 201.6 197.6 May 27 21:00 20.97 21.04 8.36 8.24 21.96 21.87 4.0 3.6 314.9 312.3 May 28 07:00 16.02 16.51 7.05 6.67 15.44 15.86 9.5 9.4 069.7 064.7 a Digital system of the 60

-meter tower was down from 9/17/74 to 10/26/74. Comparison checks for this time period are not available.

b Reading 1 hr later than indicated time.

c Reading 2 hr prior to indicated time.

d Reading 16 hr prior to indicated time.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-23 PERCENTAGE OF DATA RECOVERY FOR THE 60

-M METEOROLOGICAL TOWER AT THE SITE 1 June 1974 through May 1975 June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec. Jan. Feb. March April May Regulatory Guide 1.23Annual a93.47 93.95 98.79 87.36 74.73 100.00 94.22 98.92 97.77 82.39 87.50 90.73 91.16 10-m wind speed 96.53 94.62 99.87 97.36 95.30 99.86 94.89 98.92 87.80 96.10 99.72 99.33 96.87 10-m wind direction 97.08 94.22 98.25 86.39 78.23 99.86 96.64 99.60 96.73 94.76 99.44 99.19 95.15 10-m air temperature 93.33 96.77 99.60 99.03 99.60 99.72 95.97 99.19 97.47 92.47 87.78 98.66 96.78 10-m dewpoint temp. 93.33 96.64 99.33 97.92 95.83 99.72 95.03 96.37 97.47 92.34 98.47 89.52 96.11 60-m wind speed 99.58 96.24 99.73 97.64 98.66 99.72 96.64 99.60 91.82 96.10 97.92 97.58 97.77 60-m wind direction 98.33 96.37 99.33 90.14 95.03 99.58 96.64 99.60 97.32 95.70 97.92 99.19 97.24 60-m air temperature 99.58 96.10 99.60 98.89 99.46 99.72 95.70 99.60 97.47 92.74 99.58 91.26 97.59 a Joint recovery between 10

-m wind speed, 10

-m wind direction, 10

-m temperature, 60

-m temperature.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-24 (January 1, 1972 - December 31, 1972) METEOROLOGICAL DATA RECOVERY (PERCENT) FOR 33

-FT TOWER Temperature Data Spring (March, April, May)

Relative Humidity Data 94 93 Summer (June, July, August) 96 96 Fall (September, October, November) 96 96 Winter (December, January, February) 90 90 ANNUAL 94 94 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-25 METEOROLOGICAL MONITORING NETWORK (OPERATIONAL PROGRAM) Parameter Sampling Height (m)

Sensing Technique Primary Monitoring System Wind speed 10 and 60 Cups/light chopper Wind direction 10 and 60 Vane/potentiometer Vertical wind speed 10 Propeller Differential temperature 10 to 60 Matched thermistors Ambient temperature 10 Thermistor Dewpoint 10 Lithium Chloride Type Precipitation

1.5 Tipping

bucket Secondary Monitoring System Wind speed 10 and 60 Cups/light chopper Wind direction 10 and 60 Vane/potentiometer Vertical wind speed 10 Propeller/light chopper Differential temperature 10 to 60 Matched thermistors Ambient temperature 10 Thermistor

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-26 Level of METHOD FOR SUBSTITUTING REDUNDANT PARAMETERS FOR THE CRITICAL METEOROLOGICAL MEASUREMENTS 10-Meter Level Redundancy 10-Meter Level Wind Speed Wind Direction 0 Stability Indicator Primary WS10 Primary WD10 Primary delta T 1 Secondary WS10 Secondary WD10 Secondary delta T 2 Primary sigma theta 3 Secondary sigma theta

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-27 EAB

SUMMARY

OF MAXIMUM SECTOR AND 5 PERCENT OVERALL SITE LIMIT /Q VALUES AT THE EAB AND LPZ FOR REGULATORY POST

-ACCIDENT TIME PERIODS

  • (915 m) LPZ* (4827 m) 0-2 Hours 0-2 Hours 0-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 1-4 Days 4-30 Days Annual Average Max Sector Site Limit Max Sector Site Limit Max Sector Max Sector Max Sector Max Sector Max Sector 2.09 E-04 1.54 E-04 4.86 E-05 2.98 E-05 2.17 E-05 1.45 E-05 6.02 E-06 1.71 E-06 3.66 E-07 (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE) (ESE)
  • For the EAB and LPZ, the 0

--the 0-2 hese is selected as the controlling 0

--2 hour ost-accident time periods.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.3-28 /Q (s/m 3) VALUES AT THE CONTROL CENTER COMPLEX FOR REGULATORY POST

-ACCIDENT TIME PERIODS Accident Time Interval (source-to-receptor) LOCA 0-2 Hours 2-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 1-4 Days 4-30 Days SGTS and ECCS leakage (SGTS stack

-to-South control center intake) 6.18E-4 4.53E-4 1.88E-4 1.26E-4 8.70E-5 MSIV Leakage (TBHVAC Stack-to-North control center intake) 4.75E-4 3.78E-4 1.45E-4 9.80E-5 7.19E-5 Fuel Handling Accident 0-2 Hours 2-8 Hours 8-24 Hours 1-4 Days 4-30 Days 24-hr Drop of Recently Irradiated Fuel (SGTS

-to-North Emergency Intake) 4.03E-3*3.65E-3 The two-hour value is conservatively applied for the duration of accident. Fuel No Longer Recently Irradiated without SGTS (Outage Building

-to-South Emergency Intake) 4.25E-3 The two-hour value is conservatively applied for the duration of accident.

  • This value applies during the initial unfiltered release via RBHVAC.

REV 16 10/09 FIGURES 2.3-49 THROUGH 2.3

-51 HAVE BEEN DELETED THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-1 REV 18 10/12

2.4. HYDROLOGIC

ENGINEERING

2.4.1. Hydrologic

Description 2.4.1.1. Site and Facilities The Fermi site is located adjacent to the western shore of Lake Erie (Figure 2.4-1). Prior to construction of Fermi 2, the site area was a lagoon separated from Lake Erie by a barrier beach, known as Lagoona Beach, which formed the eastern site boundary. The Fermi 2 preconstruction topography is shown in Figure 2.4-2. The lagoon was connected to Lake Erie by Swan Creek, a perennial stream that discharges into Lake Erie about 1 mile north of the Fermi plant site. The site for Fermi 2 was prepared by excavating soft soils and rock, and constructing rock fill to a nominal plant grade elevation of 583 ft. All elevations refer to New York Mean Tide, 1935. The topography of the developed site as of December 10, 1972, is shown in Figure 2.4-3. Category I structures housing safety-related equipment consist of the reactor/auxiliary building and the residual heat removal (RHR) complex. These structures are indicated in Figure 2.1-5. The plant site is not susceptible to flooding caused by surface runoff because

of the shoreline location and the distance of the site from major streams. Plant grade is raised approximately 11 ft above the surrounding area to further minimize the possibility of flooding. Flooding of the site is conceivable only as the result of an extremely severe storm with a storm

-generated rise in the level of Lake Erie. Protection of safety

-related structures and equipment against this type of flooding is provided through the location, arrangement, and design of the structures with respect to the shoreline and possible storm-generated waves.

After the excavation of topsoil, peat, and soft clay, construction of the plant site to grade Elevation 583 ft (nominal) was accomplished using the following fill materials:

a. Crushed rock (1-1/2-in. maximum) within 10 ft from the building walls (water has been observed to run off rather than drain through this evenly graded crushed rock)
b. Crushed rock (6-in. maximum) inside the perimeter road (surrounding the plant main structures), except adjacent to buildings (this permits water to drain quite well)
c. Quarry run rock for most fill areas outside the perimeter road (surrounding the plant main structures) (providing good drainage for water under almost all circumstances)
d. Topsoil for grass was placed on a layer of 1-ft-deep crushed-rock fill, 1-1/2-in. maximum, to avoid being washed down. Roof water that is collected through drainage systems from all structures and catch basins inside the perimeter road is collected and routed to the station storm-water drain system to prevent ponding of water adjacent to structures. Water in the plant storm-water drain system is then discharged into the overflow canal. In grassy areas outside the perimeter road, and in gravel areas, catch basins discharge water into the quarry run fill. In paved areas, the catch basins are usually tied to the storm-water drain system. The plant circulating water is treated within the closed loop circulating water system, which includes the 5.5-acre circulating water reservoir.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-2 REV 18 10/12 2.4.1.2. Hydrosphere 2.4.1.2.1.

Regional Conditions The region of the Fermi site is located within the western part of the Lake Erie drainage basin. The divide between the Lake Michigan and the Lake Erie watersheds lies about 50 miles west of the site. Perennial streams in the region generally flow in a southeasterly direction and discharge into Lake Erie. Tributaries of these streams are intermittent and form a dendritic drainage pattern. The average precipitation in the region ranges from 30 in. to 36 in./yr (Subsection 2.3.1.2). Average annual runoff ranges from 10 to 16 in. Infiltration is highest in the western part of the region in areas where permeable soils occur in end moraines and beach lacustrine deposits. High runoff coefficients are characteristic of the relatively impermeable lacustrine soils in the eastern part of the region.

2.4.1.2.2.

Swan Creek The Fermi site is in the Swan Creek drainage basin. The watershed is an area of 109 square miles, elongated in shape from northwest to southeast (Figure 2.4-4). The basin is about 25 miles long with a maximum topographic relief of about 130 ft. The drainage area topography is flat to gently undulating and varies from about 700 ft elevation in the upper watershed to about 570 ft elevation at Lake Erie. Land in the basin is mixed in use for residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural purposes. The surface soils are primarily lacustrine clay with some lacustrine sand ridges at the head of the watershed. The infiltration capacity of the basin soils is low. Surface drainage is poor and drainage ditch improvements are common in the upper part of the basin.

Stream channel flow is retarded by typical vegetative cover of deciduous trees and brush undergrowth. There are no flow-control structures on Swan Creek. Stream level near the site is controlled by the level of Lake Erie.

Gages were placed along Swan Creek in 1971 and the collected data indicate that runoff is greatest during the spring and early summer (Reference 1). Data on the adjacent River Raisin and Huron River also indicate that runoff is highest during spring and summer.

However, Swan Creek stream flow is normally too low for water supply use.

2.4.1.2.3.

Lake Erie 2.4.1.2.3.1. Lake Characteristics Lake Erie is approximately 240 miles long and has a mean width of 40 miles. The lake is divided into three principal subbasins: (1) a small, shallow basin at the west end which borders the site and is partially restricted by a chain of barrier beaches and islands; (2) a flat, unrestricted, and rather shallow basin in the center; and (3) a small, relatively deep eastern basin. The average depth of the lake is 61 ft and the maximum depth is 210 ft. The longitudinal axis of the lake trends northeast-southwest, a direction coincident with strong and persistent winds that predominate under normal meteorological conditions. Wind FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-3 REV 18 10/12 stresses acting upon the lake surface over a sustained period can have a considerable effect on the level of the lake.

The most significant lake level variations are observed mainly at the western and eastern ends of the lake and are caused by transport of water as a result of sustained wind actions.

Historical records show that in about 96 percent of all extreme cases, high water occurred at the eastern end of the lake and low water occurred at the western end. This is a result of the predominantly westerly winds causing the lake to set up at the eastern end. The lake bottom in the vicinity of the site slopes very gently toward the east, reaching a depth of approximately 12 ft about 1/2 mile offshore. The soil deposits below the west end of the lake consist primarily of sand with intermittent layers of gravel and/or clay.

Two primary current patterns exist in the Lagoona Beach embayment. Winds moving from the northwest clockwise through northeast result in a general southwestward airflow over the entire embayment. This airflow creates the pattern of water movement shown in Figure 2.4

-5. When the winds are from east-southeast clockwise through west, northward longshore currents are found to exist with a pronounced clockwise eddy formed south of the Point Mouillee marshes. This current pattern is shown in Figure 2.4-6. When onshore winds from east clockwise through east-southeast and offshore winds from west-northwest clockwise through northwest occur, phase systems of current flow develop that produce variable patterns. The longshore currents shift from one primary current pattern to the other, reflecting changes in the local wind system. These phase changes are generally of short duration. Under ice cover, variations occur in the southward current flow and result in divergence of the currents immediately south of the existing plant intake and convergence north and east of Pointe Aux Peaux as shown in Figure 2.4-7.

2.4.1.2.3.2. Water Use The use of potable and agricultural surface water within 10 miles of the plant site is presented in Subsection 2.1.4.2. Surface-water users withdrawing water from intakes in Lake Erie are the only surface-water users subject to the effects of accidental or normal releases of contaminants from the plant into the hydrosphere. The existing intakes along the western shore of Lake Erie have been examined to ensure that the dilution capacity of Lake Erie is sufficient to preclude adverse effects on users from releases of contaminants (Subsection 2.4.12). It is expected that future intakes will be located in the same approximate area and likewise will not be exposed to adverse effects of contaminants. Municipalities with Lake Erie intakes, listed in Table 2.1-12, are located as shown in Figure 2.1-20. The municipal water intake nearest to the plant is the Monroe intake near Pointe Aux Peaux, approximately 2 miles southeast of the site, as shown in Figure 2.4-1. The Toledo intake is located about 18.6 miles due south of the plant site. The 1972 annual withdrawals at the Monroe and Toledo intakes were 2000 x 10 6 gal and 29,200 x 10 6 gal, respectively.

2.4.1.2.4.

Ground Water Regional ground water features are discussed in Subsection 2.4.13.1.1. Ground water in the site area occurs in a dolomite aquifer, underlying a mantle of relatively impermeable glacial deposits and recent sediments. This mantle ranges up to 40 ft in thickness. Water wells are FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-4 REV 18 10/12 of low yield and the water is highly mineralized. The aquifer characteristics and ground water uses are described in more detail in Subsection 2.4.13.2.

2.4.2. Floods

2.4.2.1. Flood History 2.4.2.1.1.

Maximum Mean Monthly Lake Levels Based upon data collected by the U.S. Lake Survey, Detroit, Michigan (Reference 2), the highest observed monthly mean water level during the period of record from 1860 to 1973 was +4.9 ft above Low Water Datum. This level occurred during June 1973, at Monroe, Michigan. During 1973, the monthly mean water level varied between +3.0 and +4.9 ft above Low Water Datum, a vertical variation of 1.9 ft (Figure 2.4-9).2.4.2.1.2.

Maximum Wind Tide Lake gaging records at Monroe have been collected for the periods from 1932 to 1939 and from 1952 to the present. Data from gages at Gibraltar and Toledo have been in existence since 1897 and have been correlated with records from the Monroe gage. Based on this relationship, the calculated maximum wind tide at Monroe was +4.5 ft on January 30, 1939.

In an earlier report covering the period 1886 to 1896, a maximum wind tide of +5.5 ft was reported at Monroe. The description of the easterly gales that produced this wind tide suggests that they were more intense than those reported during the past 77 years. Therefore, it is reasonable to accept +5.5 ft (Elevation 576.0 ft) as the maximum wind tide occurrence since 1886.

2.4.2.1.3.

Seiche History Seiche history is discussed in Subsection 2.4.5.2.

2.4.2.1.4.

Swan Creek Complete flood data are not available for Swan Creek as gages were not installed until 1971.

Long-term information exists from gages on adjacent drainage basins. On the River Raisin near Monroe, the largest flood (record begins in 1938) occurred on March 29, 1950, and the second largest on April 6, 1947. On the Huron River at Ann Arbor, the largest flood (record begins in 1918) occurred on April 5, 1947. Maximum annual floods occur principally in April and May. Discharge frequencies at the mouth of Swan Creek, estimated using standard methods (References 3 and 4), are shown in Table 2.4-1. The estimated 100-year frequency discharge of 9300 cfs on Swan Creek is significantly less than the probable maximum flood (PMF) flow of 89,000 cfs (Subsection 2.4.3.4). In Subsection 2.4.3.5, it is demonstrated that the PMF flow on Swan Creek could not cause flooding at plant grade Elevation 583.0 ft. Therefore, water levels for the estimated discharges in Table 2.4-1 are not pertinent to site flood considerations.

2.4.2.1.5.

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-6 REV 18 10/12 For most of November 12, 1972, winds were light and out of the southwest. Very late on the 12th and throughout the 13th, winds shifted gradually to northwest, then to northeast. By midday on November 13, the northeast winds were established and the velocity increased to 20 knots. The water level began rising at the Fermi site at 0800 hr on November 13. The maximum wind speed at Toledo was 25 knots and was reached early on November 14. By midday on the 14th, when the wind direction was changing to north, the water level at the Fermi site had reached its maximum elevation, 576.8 ft. The water level dropped rapidly, reaching a minimum level of elevation at 1800 hr on the 14th. Wind direction remained northerly throughout the 15th and velocity varied from 5 to 14 knots. Secondary and tertiary seiches were experienced on the 15th, but decayed rapidly from bottom friction. The troughs of these seiches resulted in lake elevations of 573.5 and 573.3 ft at the Fermi site. By November 16, the water level had stabilized at approximately Elevation 574.3 ft. Waves during this storm were not measured at the site. Sufficient data describing the storm are available to hindcast the probable wave attack at the site. Waves were estimated at the Detroit River Light Station as ranging between 5 and 8 ft. Wind speed reached a maximum of 35 knots from the northeast at the Detroit River Light Station while Toledo Express Airport reported a maximum of 25 knots from direction N50E. Applying a factor of 1.3 to the Detroit River Light Station yields an over-water wind velocity of 45.5 knots. The fetch aligned with the wind direction was approximately 51,000 ft long and had associated with it a depth of approximately 20 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 4.2 ft and 3.3 sec, and a maximum wave height and period of 7.6 ft and 4.0 sec, would have been generated during this storm. The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. Figure 2.4-10 shows the bathymetry offshore of the site.

A conservative approximation of the lake bottom slope in this area is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height reaching the beach at highest water level would have been 1.7 ft. Waves larger than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site.

The maximum runup elevation which would have been reached during this storm is 579.6 ft.

This elevation is considerably less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft.2.4.2.1.5.3. April 1973 Storm and Flood Analysis Another storm moved into the Lake Erie Basin on April 9, 1973. Although this storm was less intense than the November 1972 storm, its total impact was nearly equal to the November storm because of the extremely high static lake level at the time.

In April 1973, the mean lake level at Toledo was measured by the U.S. Lake Survey as +4.76 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5 ft. The maximum surge associated with this spring storm was measured as +3.3 ft at Toledo, which brought the total stillwater level to 578.6 ft.

This is 0.7 ft higher than the level reached by the November l972 storm. On April 8, 1973, wind speeds ranged from 15 to 20 knots, blowing steadily from the northeast. On the morning of the 9th, the wind speed increased, reaching a maximum value FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-7 REV 18 10/12 of 35 knots and shifting gradually to the east-northeast by 1430 hr. The water level began rising at Toledo, Ohio, at 0100 hr on April 9 and reached maximum Elevation 578.57 ft at 1600 hr on the 9th. The water level dropped rapidly, reaching minimum level Elevation 573.2 ft at 0100 hr on the l0th. Secondary and tertiary seiches were experienced on the 10th, but decayed rapidly from bottom friction. By April 11, the water level had stabilized at approximate Elevation 574.6 ft. At the height of the storm, an 8-ft wave height was reported at the Detroit River Light Station. To supplement the available wave data, a wave hindcast analysis was performed for the Fermi site. The maximum wind speed measured at the Detroit River Light Station was 35 knots from direction N67.5E. This wind speed was increased by a factor of 1.30 to obtain an over-water velocity. The fetch aligned with the wind direction was 66,900 ft long and had associated with it a depth of approximately 20 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 4.8 ft and 3.6 sec, and a maximum wave height and period of 8.6 ft and 4.3 sec, would have been generated during this storm. The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. A conservative approximation of the slope of the lake bottom is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height reaching the beach at highest water level would have been 2.0 ft. Waves larger than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation that would have been reached during this storm is 581.7 ft. This elevation is less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft.2.4.2.1.5.4. June 1973 Storm and Flood Analysis High static lake levels continued through 1973. During June the mean lake level measured at Toledo by the U.S. Lake Survey was approximately 4.9 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5 ft. The earlier April 1973 storm occurred at a time when the lake was approximately 4.8 ft above the Low Water Datum. The maximum instantaneous surge associated with this June storm was measured at +3.4 ft at Toledo, which brought the total stillwater level to 578.7 ft. This was 0.1 ft above the April 1973 storm and 0.8 ft higher than the November 1972 storm. At the Fermi site, maximum stillwater levels recorded by the U.S. Lake Survey reached a peak hourly reading of 577.75 (Low Water Datum) at 0200 hr on June 17, 1973. The Fermi water-level recorder does not record instantaneous water levels; however, interpolation from stations at Toledo, Ohio, and Gibraltar, Michigan, yields an instantaneous high of approximately 578.6 ft. Detroit area newspapers reported a maximum flood stage of 578.4 ft. Wind speeds with an easterly component at the west end of Lake Erie between June 17 and June 18 were generally light to moderate. The Toledo Express Airport recorded fastest 1-minute velocities of only 9.6 knots, while the Detroit River Light Station recorded velocities between 10 and 15 knots. In addition, the Canadian government reported easterly gusts to 34 knots with an average of 20.9 knots at their Southeast Shoal lighthouse near Pt. Pelee, Ontario. The duration of these easterly winds was about 25 hr with peak velocities reached in the first 6 hr.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-8 REV 18 10/12 Winds at the east end of the lake, at Buffalo, were only slightly higher but maintained an easterly component for approximately 34 hr. It was this long-duration, moderate-wind regime at the east end of Lake Erie that was primarily responsible for the flooding at the west end. Buffalo reported east winds 12 hr before Toledo. The east winds from Buffalo were met by westerly winds from Toledo, which resulted in a temporary water buildup (to Elevation 576.3 ft 4 in.) at Cleveland. When the Toledo winds finally switched from west to east, the light to moderate velocities were enough to push the surge into the western end of the lake. Wave heights, which were estimated during the storm at the Detroit River Light Station, ranged from 2 to 5 ft. To supplement available data, a wave hindcast analysis was performed at the Fermi site. Assuming a maximum steady-state wind velocity of 21 knots blowing from the east (N90E), and applying a factor of 1.3, an over-water wind velocity of 27.3 knots is obtained. The maximum fetch aligned with the wind direction was 199,500 ft and had associated with it a depth of approximately 25 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 3.9 ft and 3.2 sec, and maximum wave height and period of 7.0 ft and 3.8 sec, would have been generated during this storm. The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. A conservative approximation of the slope of the lake bottom is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height reaching the beach at highest water level would have been 1.3 ft. Waves higher than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation that would have been reached during this storm is 581.0 ft. This elevation is less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft.2.4.2.1.5.5. April 1974 Storm and Flood Analysis In 1974 the highest water level measured by the U.S. Lake Survey at Toledo occurred on April 8 at 12 noon. The maximum reading was the result of sustained high static lake levels and an early spring storm. In March and April the mean lake level at Toledo was approximately 4.4 ft above the Low Water Datum of 570.5. The maximum surge associated with the storm that moved through the area on April 7 and 8 was measured at +3.6 ft, which brought the total stillwater level to 578.5 ft. This was 0.2 ft below the June 1973 storm and 0.1 ft below the spring storm of April 1973. At the Fermi site, the maximum stillwater level recorded by the U.S. Lake Survey was at Elevation 577.6 ft, which occurred at 12 noon on April 8.

Fastest 1-minute wind speeds measured at the Toledo Express Airport had a northeasterly direction and obtained a maximum of 26 knots with an average of 16.3 knots. At the Detroit River Light Station, a maximum wind velocity of 28 knots from the northeast and an estimated wave height of 4 to 5 ft were recorded at l030 hr on April 8. At 1630 hr on April 8, the light station recorded an east-northeast wind at 25 knots and a wave height of 5 to 6 ft. At this time water levels were already dropping at both Toledo and the Fermi site.

To supplement the available wave data, a wave hindcast analysis was performed for the Fermi site. Assuming a maximum steady-state wind velocity of 28 knots from direction FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-9 REV 18 10/12 N67.5E and applying a factor of 1.3, an over-water wind velocity of 36.4 knots is obtained. The maximum fetch aligned with the wind direction was 66,900 ft long and had associated with it a depth of approximately 20 ft at high water. A significant wave height and period of 3.8 ft and 3.2 sec, and a maximum wave height and period of 6.8 ft and 3.7 sec, would have been generated during this storm.

The waves that approached the Fermi site would have been limited in height by the available depth of water over the gradually sloping lake bottom. A conservative approximation of the slope of the lake bottom is 1:100. Using this slope and the maximum wave period, the maximum supported wave height would have been 1.6 ft. Waves larger than this would have broken too far seaward of the beach berm to have affected the site. The maximum runup elevation that would have been reached during this storm is 581.3 ft. This elevation is less than the plant grade at the Fermi site of 583.0 ft and the PMME water level of 586.9 ft.

2.4.2.2. Flood Design Consideration 2.4.2.2.1.

Conditions Considered The following basic types of hypothetical flooding conditions were considered in the design:

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

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

The local temporary water buildup elevation will be substantially lower than the flood elevation due to the maximum wind tide, as described in item b.

above d. The potential dam failure effect is not applicable, as described in Subsection

2.4.4 FERMI

2 UFSAR 2.4-10 REV 18 10/12

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

The case (item b) above is clearly the most critical condition and is defined as the PMME.2.4.2.2.2.

Reactor/Auxiliary Building Flood Criteria The Category I reactor/auxiliary building, which houses safety

-related systems and components, is designed against flooding to Elevation 588.0 ft, or 1.1 ft above the PMME stillwater flood elevation of 586.9 ft. All doors and penetrations through the outside walls below the design flood elevation are of watertight design. All safety-related systems and equipment located inside this Category I structure are protected from the PMME flood. The reactor/auxiliary building is also designed to withstand wave action associated with this flooding. Maximum wave effects and forces are discussed in Subsection 2.4.5.4. All interior floor drain systems inside the reactor/auxiliary building are not connected to the yard storm drainage system and, therefore, no potential water backflow into the structure is anticipated during the design flood condition. Shore protection is not required to preclude flooding of this structure. The reactor/auxiliary building has only a few essential penetrations in the exterior walls. All of these penetrations below Elevation 588 ft are watertight.

The presence of the turbine building prevents waves and wave runup above the sill elevations on the east wall of the reactor/ auxiliary building, thereby preventing flooding of the buildings. The south wall of the reactor/auxiliary building has two large openings, two rail pockets with waterproofed seals and several waterproofed pipe-sleeved openings. These large openings are in an air

-locked rail-car door and an air-locked personnel door. Both of these doors, however, will be air-locked and completely waterproofed to preclude wave runup flooding. The reactor/auxiliary building roof is designed for a live load of 30 lb/ft

2. This load is equivalent to approximately 6 in. of water, or its equivalent in snow, or snow and ice load combined. Roof drains are designed for a rainfall of 4 in./hr. The reactor building roof water drains through openings in the parapet wall into scuppers and then down through conductors to the auxiliary building roof. Roof drains in the auxiliary building roof carry the runoff into the buried site drainage system by first passing through the turbine building roof drainage system.2.4.2.2.3.

Residual Heat Removal Complex Flood Criteria The RHR complex is watertight to Elevation 590.0 ft. The north, south, and west walls have no openings. The east wall has approximately 30 waterproofed pipe-sleeved openings. The east wall also has four sets of double 3 ft by 7 ft doors for access to the building. These doors are normally closed and locked, and have their thresholds at Elevation 590.0 ft and extend to Elevation 597.0 ft. They are of steel construction and are shielded behind FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-11 REV 18 10/12 reinforced

-concrete missile walls.

The east wall also has eight 4" diameter openings with water tight seals located within each of the two RHR cable vaults at elevations above 590'-6". Waves reaching the east wall of the RHR complex across the flooded site would be diminished considerably by the stairs, the missile wall, and the landing at Elevation 590.0 ft in front of the doors. The insignificant amount of runup above the flooded elevation of 586.9 ft, or generated by the reduced waves, may find its way through the door threshold and door jambs, at Elevation 590.0 ft, and be diverted into the floor drain system in the building. The structure is also designed to withstand the wave action associated with this flooding. Shore protection is not required to preclude flooding of this structure. The roofs of the RHR complex are provided with an adequate number of drainage pipes to pass runoff resulting from the PMP. The PMP was obtained from U.S. Weather Bureau (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) information (Reference 5). Further, the storm-drainage provisions surrounding the RHR complex are designed to pass the discharge from the drain pipes as well as the runoff from surrounding areas. The plant area drainage system is designed so that there is no possibility of ponding near the RHR complex. The roofs of the RHR complex are designed for a postulated maximum ice and snow load of 70 lb/ft 2. This load is based on the simultaneous accumulation of the most severe postulated ice resulting from the mechanical draft cooling towers drift loss (21 lb/ft

2) plus the seasonal snowpack (30 lb/ ft 2), and on an additional ice load (19 lb/ft 2). The mechanical draft cooling tower drift loss is based on an assumed drift loss of 0.015 percent, with the fans operating at full speed. For evaluating the ice loading on the RHR complex roof, a conservative value of 0.1 percent for drift loss was used at full speed. Under freezing conditions, the fans operate at half speed or are completely shut off. The total water loss under these conditions is less than 390 gal/hr. Based on the above, it is estimated that, with two towers operating for 30 days with no wind drift, and with the temperature below freezing, the maximum ice accumulation is less than 4-1/2 in. This amount of ice is equivalent to about 21 lb/ft 2 live load. The seasonal snowpack load is based on results of reported research (Reference 6).

According to this reference, the seasonal snowpack load is 30 lb/ft 2.2.4.2.2.4.

Category I Yard Structures Flood Design Criteria The Category I piping and electrical ducts between the RHR complex and the reactor building are below the site flood elevation of 586.9 ft during the PMME. The RHR supply, RHR return, and emergency equipment service water pipelines to both divisions will continue to function during the flood. There are two sets of Category I ductbanks between the RHR complex and the Reactor/Auxiliary building, with a Division I and Division II ductbank in each set. In each case, the buried cable ducts between the RHR complex and the Reactor/Auxiliary building provide adequate cable separation to maintain independence of redundant circuits. The first set of ductbanks was installed during plant construction. The physical separation of the two redundant, below-grade circuits is 30 ft at the point the cable ducts leave the southeast corner of the reactor building. The ducts make a sweeping bend with a minimum FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-12 REV 18 10/12 separation of 20 ft between them. After the bend, the ducts parallel the reactor building in a westerly direction, with 24-ft separation. This separation is constant until the ducts pass under the rail-car air lock, where the separation widens until the ducts enter (still below grade) the RHR complex.

Each circuit is separately housed in a cast

-in-place, rectangular reinforced

-concrete duct. The duct is covered by successive layers of compacted rock fill placed up to the finished site grade of 583.0 ft. The duct runs vary in elevation from 573.0 ft minimum to 580.0 ft maximum. Since maximum ground water elevation is 576.0 ft, the cables are not specifically designed for continuous underwater service. For low voltage power, control and instrumentation cables, there is no long term mechanism for water related insulation degradation due to lack of voltage stressor or a credible common mode failure mechanism. Therefore, low voltage cables perform their design functions while their external surface remains continuously wetted due to surrounding water. 4160-V essential power circuits are not routed within these ductbanks. The second set of ductbanks, associated manholes, and cable vaults is installed above the maximum ground water elevation of 576.0 ft with ducts sloped to the manholes, such that circuits contained are not subject to continuous wetting. These are also cast-in-place, rectangular reinforced concrete ductbanks, but are located with the ductbank top approximately six inches below the surface and manhole covers at grade level. The ductbanks rise above grade and enter above ground cable vaults at the RHR complex and also rise above grade at the entrance to the Reactor/Auxiliary building cable vaults. 4160-V essential power circuits are routed within these ductbanks. The minimum elevation for cable termination in either the RHR complex or reactor building is 588.7 ft, which is above the site maximum probable stillwater elevation of 586.9 ft.

2.4.2.2.5.

Site Drainage Flood Design Criteria The storm drainage system is not used to protect Category I structures from local PMP flooding, as further discussed in Subsection 2.4.2.3. Inlet manholes in the immediate plant vicinity are located at the low points of relatively flat roadside and railroad track areas, and in local area depressions. The storm-drainage conduit discharges westward into the existing overflow canal for Fermi 1 and eventually into Lake Erie through estuaries. The storm-drainage system is designed as a gravity system with a minimum velocity of 3 fps flowing full for a rainfall intensity of 4 in./hr. Runoff coefficients used are 1.0 for roofs and paved areas and 0.5 for gravel and grassed areas. The closed storm-drainage system provides the normal means of drainage for the plant site and building roofs.

The sedimentation potential of the site drainage system for anticipated rainfall conditions is negligible since the site consists principally of firmly compacted crushed-rock fill and grassed areas, and the slopes of the ditches feeding the inlet of manholes are relatively flat. The resulting velocity of the drainage flow is nonscouring. Riprap or paving is provided for protection of outlet ends at all discharge points of the storm sewer system.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-13 REV 18 10/12 2.4.2.3. Effects of Local Intense Precipitation Flooding due to a local PMP on the adjacent 2

-square mile drainage area west of the plant site, as shown in Figure 2.4-4, was examined. The local PMP shown in Table 2.4-2 was determined by use of Reference 5. The hourly distribution of the maximum 6-hr rainfall was determined by procedures presented in Reference 7. The shorter 15-minute-duration PMP was extrapolated by use of similar procedures. Due to its small area, the rational formula with a runoff coefficient of 1.0 and concentration time of 15 minutes was applied to compute the peak discharge (Reference 8). The maximum PMP intensity of 15 minutes is assumed to be 4.9 in., as shown in Table 2.4-2. The calculated peak discharge due to the local PMP is 25,000 cfs, which is 10,000 cfs greater than indicated by the PMF peak envelope curve for the Great Lakes region. The Great Lakes PMF peak discharge envelope curve indicates a maximum flow of 15,000 cfs, which represents a more severe flood than would result from the relatively flat 2

-square mile local area if determined by the unit hydrograph PMP calculation procedure. The calculated peak discharge due to the local PMP is 25,000 cfs. Assuming, conservatively, that the peak discharge would pass the plant site only along the axis of the overflow canal (Figure 2.1-5), a hypothetical cross section approximately 1 mile in length and normal to the axis of the overflow canal was constructed to intersect the southernmost chimney on the plant site and the intersection of Langton and Leroux roads to the west of the site (Figure 2.4-3). Using the slope/area method and conservative values of slope and roughness coefficient, 0.001 ft/ft and 0.07, respectively, a flow of 31,500 cfs was determined as passing through the cross section with a maximum water surface elevation of 582 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935). The peak flow due to a local PMP, 25,000 cfs, would pass through the cross section at an even lower water surface elevation. In this analysis, channel or cross-section bottom was assumed to be at maximum monthly mean lake level. And, as stated earlier, all flow due to a local PMP was assumed to pass through the hypothetical cross section. Under actual conditions, a peak flow due to the local PMP would flow both south of the plant site and to Lake Erie, as well as through the hypothetical cross section. Water surface elevations due to a local PMP would therefore be lower in actuality than those determined in our analysis. At a hypothetical water surface elevation of less than 582 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935), as determined in the above analysis, the maximum water elevation at peak flow due to a local PMP would be more than 1 ft below plant grade (583 ft, New York Mean Tide, 1935) and would not pose a threat to safety-related structures onsite.

With respect to that portion of a local PMP falling on the plant site itself, including roof structures, runoff overflowing the roof parapets and from the downspouts, assuming that the site drainage system was completely blocked, would flow overland under conditions of site gradient (Figure 2.1-5) to lower elevations surrounding the site and then to Lake Erie itself. All door sills on safety-related structures are at least 6 in. above plant grade. Because there are no downspouts or scuppers located near doors on safety-related structures, ponded water under local PMP conditions, with the event of a blocked site drainage system, should drain overland, as described above, prior to reaching the base of door sills on safety-related structures.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-14 REV 18 10/12 The local PMP is shown in Table 2.4-2, and the description of the runoff model is given in Subsection 2.4.3.3. The drainage system in the plant site area is designed with inlet manholes located at the low points of relatively flat roadside and railroad ditches and in local area depressions. The storm-drainage system is not used to protect Category I structures from local PMP flooding, as described in Subsection 2.4.2.2.

2.4.3. Probable

Maximum Flood on Swan Creek The PMF is an estimated flood that may be expected from the most severe combination of critical meteorologic and hydrologic conditions that are reasonably possible in the region (References 5 and 7). The PMF on Swan Creek was estimated as the maximum flood runoff resulting from a PMP occurring on the entire drainage basin of 109 square miles, as shown in Figure 2.4-4.

2.4.3.1. Probable Maximum Precipitation The estimation of a PMP includes both time and areal distributions. Due to its small drainage area (109 square miles), the PMP is assumed uniformly distributed throughout the entire Swan Creek watershed. The time distribution of a PMP is obtained as follows. The PMP for various durations shown in Table 2.4-3 was obtained from the all-season PMP (Reference 5). Its 2

-hr time distribution for the maximum 6

-hr rainfall and time sequence were based on procedures presented in Reference 7. Table 2.4-3 shows the synthesized PMP for the Swan Creek watershed.

2.4.3.2. Precipitation Losses An estimate of precipitation losses was obtained using data from References 9 and 10 and studies of other similar areas. Surface soils in the Swan Creek drainage area are largely comprised of lacustrine clays, which have low infiltration capacity (Reference 11). The land use is estimated as follows: 30 percent small grain, 30 percent forage and pasture, 25 percent row crops, and 15 percent wooded land and buildings. Considering the Swan Creek type ground cover and soil surface as compared to similar type areas in other locations where studies have been made, minimum loss rates are higher in the summer months than in the winter months. These minimum losses can be characterized as follows.

a. Winter initial losses vary from 0.0 to 0.2 in., and winter infiltration losses vary from 0.01 to 0.02 in./ hr b. Summer initial losses vary from 0.5 to 1.2 in., and minimum summer infiltration rates are approximately 0.05 in./hr. The Swan Creek losses adopted are initial losses of 0.5 in. and an infiltration rate of 0.02 in./hr during the probable maximum storm. This is assumed as occurring during a wet period with the most favorable antecedent conditions when the moisture capacity of the topsoil would be essentially satisfied. The adopted minimum losses for the Swan Creek area assuming the most favorable (to high runoff) antecedent (ground and rainfall) conditions are based on a conservative estimate for these conditions. The Swan Creek rainfall

-excess relationships were determined by use of the minimum conservative losses during the PMP FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-15 REV 18 10/12 storm as shown in Table 2.4-4. The estimated precipitation losses and runoff are shown in Table 2.4-4.

2.4.3.3. Runoff Model Because Swan Creek was ungaged prior to 1971, a synthetic unit hydrograph was developed for the 109-square mile basin, as shown in Figure 2.4-4, by using Snyder's method (Reference 12). The runoff was determined at the mouth of Swan Creek north of the site. Figure 2.4-12 shows the synthetically derived unit hydrograph of 2-hr duration for the Swan Creek watershed. The hydrograph ordinates are shown in Table 2.4-4. Coefficients used in the derivation of the synthetic unit hydrograph are as follows: L = 25.4 miles, L ca = 16.7 miles, C t = 2.0, W50 = 16 hr, and W75 = 9 hr. The terms L and L ca are distances measured on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographical map for the site area. Time in hours, from start of rise to peak rate, or t p, was determined using the formula

= (). The value of t p was determined to be 12.3 hr using a basin parameter C t of 2.0. Comparison of synthetic unit hydrograph values for Swan Creek with values for nearby stations with similar runoff characteristics as obtained from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers unpublished unit hydrographs is given in Table 2.4-5. Table 2.4-5 illustrates the conservatism of the coefficients selected for the Swan Creek watershed. For example, a curve enveloping the q p values would yield a unit hydrograph peak of about 3100 cfs for the 109 square miles as compared to the 4000 cfs peak adopted. The utilization of the extreme coefficient value was intended to include the possible nonlinear runoff response of Swan Creek due to high rainfall intensities.

2.4.3.4. Probable Maximum Flood Flow The PMF for the 109-square mile watershed of Swan Creek was determined by appropriate application of the preceding analysis described in Subsections 2.4.3.1, 2.4.3.2, and 2.4.3.3. Base flow was assumed to be 100 cfs. The computed PMF hydrograph components are shown in Table 2.4-4. The calculated basin-wide peak flow in Swan Creek due to the synthesized PMP is 89,000 cfs at the mouth of Swan Creek, as shown in Figure 2.4-13.

There are no dams or other regulating hydraulic structures on Swan Creek that could affect the hydrograph. The exact PMF stream course response cannot be assessed since Swan Creek has not been gaged for a sufficient period of time.

2.4.3.5. Water-Level Determinations The water level at the site is controlled by Lake Erie. The PMF flow from Swan Creek has no significant effect on the design water level at the site. The maximum lake stillwater level due to storm surge is Elevation 586.9 ft (Subsection 2.4.2.2.1). Plant grade is at Elevation 583.0 ft. At plant grade elevation, the lake water would extend approximately 2.5 miles inland from the plant site (Figure 2.4-11) and even further inland at maximum stillwater level.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-16 REV 18 10/12 To estimate the maximum floodwater level, a section through the east end of the plant site and normal to Swan Creek was selected to compute backwater effects due to the PMF flow on Swan Creek. This section is 3.5 miles wide and is bounded by Port Sunlight Road to the north and Pointe Aux Peaux Road to the south (Figure 2.4-1). Neither of the roads was constructed as a flood-protection levee. In the vicinity of the control section, the land is flat, approximately at Elevation 572.5 ft (Figure 2.4-11). The backwater calculations were done with the assumptions that the selected section has a water level at Elevation 575.3 ft, mean monthly maximum lake level, and the main plant structures are located 1500 ft west of this section. By applying the Manning formula (Reference 13) on a rectangular channel with a width of 3.5 miles and a bottom elevation of 572.5 ft, with a Manning's roughness coefficient of 0.07, the estimated rise of water level during a peak flood flow of 89,000 cfs is less than 2.0 ft. Therefore, the maximum flood level at the plant site due to the PMF flow from Swan Creek at the mean monthly maximum lake level is at approximately Elevation 577.3 ft, which provides a safety margin of more than 5.7 ft below the established plant grade of Elevation 583.0 ft. The same procedures were applied using a higher peak flood flow of 115,000 cfs, resulting in an estimated maximum flood level at the plant site at Elevation 579.1 ft, which is 3.9 ft below the plant grade. Therefore, the PMF flow from Swan Creek has no flooding potential with respect to the plant site.

Additional computations, utilizing the slope/area method at a hypothetical cross section through Swan Creek above the plant site (Figure 2.4-4) determined that a flow of 106,000 cfs in Swan Creek would represent a maximum water surface elevation at the cross section of 582 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935). The PMF of 89,000 cfs on Swan Creek (Subsection 2.4.3.4) should not cause flooding affecting safety-related structures at plant grade Elevation 583 ft (New York Mean Tide, 1935). In the above computations by the slope/area method, a hypothetical cross section normal to Swan Creek and approximately 1.8 miles in length was chosen. Channel base or the botto m

of the cross section was assumed to be at the elevation of the maximum monthly mean lake level. A slope of 0.001 ft/ft and a roughness coefficient of 0.07 were used in the computations.

2.4.3.6. Coincident Wind Wave Activity A flood on Swan Creek would result in a landward extension of the lake. Therefore, wind activity determined for the lake would apply to the stream flood condition. Wave activity in Lake Erie is described in Subsection 2.4.5.4.

2.4.4. Potential

Dam Failures (Seismically Induced)

There are no regulatory structures on Swan Creek. Nor are there dams on other streams or rivers in southeastern Michigan that should failure result because of seismic or other disturbances would affect water levels in Lake Erie along the plant shoreline.

2.4.5. Probable

Maximum Surge and Seiche Flooding FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-17 REV 18 10/12 2.4.5.1. Probable Maximum Winds and Associated Meteorological Parameters Extensive studies have been made regarding the effects of wind setup on Lake Erie. Data developed by Platzman (Reference 14), which relate lake levels at Toledo and Buffalo to various wind conditions, were used to establish the wind setup for the site. The Platzman one-dimensional wind setup model has been verified using four storms producing peak setup at Toledo (Reference 15). The model, valid for setup along the longitudinal axis of Lake Erie, has been shown to consistently calculate peak longitudinal setup greater than the measured peak longitudinal setup at Toledo when using the wind stress and bottom friction coefficients proposed by Platzman. Verification of this model is valid for input winds measured at the Ashtabula Coast Guard Station. The verification for one storm, and possibly a second, indicates that cross-lake wind setup can, at times, be significant and should be considered. The conservatism of the model in predicting the longitudinal setup increases with increasing wind speed. For a maximum 3-hr average wind speed of 74 knots, the model is estimated to compute a longitudinal wind setup at Toledo 2 ft above the value which would be measured.

Whereas an allowance should be made for the possibility of cross-lake setup occurring simultaneously with longitudinal setup at Toledo, an allowance is not required at the Fermi site near Monroe since Monroe is in the vicinity of the nodal point for cross-lake setup. The nodal point is the location where the change in stillwater level due to cross-lake setup is zero.

To establish meteorological conditions appropriate for calculation of the maximum probable wind setup for the site, winds with an easterly or northeasterly component that would be sustained for 6 to 9 hr were examined. The National Weather Records Center in Asheville, North Carolina, was commissioned to examine 25 years of wind records for eight stations in the vicinity of Lake Erie. The eight stations were Toledo, Windsor (Ontario), Sandusky, Cleveland, London (Ontario), Youngstown, Erie, and Buffalo. The National Weather Records Center tabulated (Reference 16) the speed, direction, and date of the fastest 1-minute wind having an easterly component. The maximum, easterly 1-minute wind speeds observed for the 25-year period at the eastern four stations (London, Youngstown, Erie, and Buffalo) were 65, 37, 60, and 44 mph, respectively. The companion maximum, easterly 1-minute wind speeds observed at the western four stations (Toledo, Windsor, Sandusky, and Cleveland) were 40, 45, 35, and 35 mph respectively. Comprehensive analysis of these and other data (Reference 17) led to the conclusions that:

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

On this basis, a maximum, 1

-minute easterly wind speed of 45 mph was selected as representative for the 25-year period of record for the site. This 1-minute value was converted to the probable maximum easterly wind as follows:

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-18 REV 18 10/12

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

-minute wind speed of 74 mph was calculated (Reference 19) by multiplying the maximum 1-minute easterly wind speed by 0.86 d. The 1000-year maximum easterly wind was taken as the maximum 10

-minute wind speed of 74 mph. The PMME data used to calculate the probable maximum wind tide at the Fermi site were obtained from the table of probable maximum wind estimates (over-water wind speeds) supplied by the AEC. The PMME wind speeds over the lake varied with time and distance along the lake axis. The peak 10-minute wind speed was 100 mph. Since the model used to calculate the probable maximum wind tide (Reference 14) is one dimensional, the PMME winds were directed along the axis of Lake Erie (N67.5E). The PMME had a translational velocity of 20 mph moving from east to west, and duration of 60 hr.

2.4.5.2. Surge and Seiche History 2.4.5.2.1.

Maximum Monthly Mean Lake Level Historical maximum monthly mean water levels are discussed in Subsection 2.4.2.1.1.

2.4.5.2.2.

Maximum Wind Tide Historical maximum wind tides are discussed in Subsection 2.4.2.1.2.

2.4.5.2.3.

Seiches Seiches are periodic oscillations of the lake water level that are caused by changes in wind stress or barometric pressure acting upon the water surface. As the wind stress diminishes, the adverse gradient of the surface water cannot be maintained and an inertial surge of water occurs. Seiches also may result from very rapid changes in barometric pressure, usually associated with squall lines. However, sudden barometric disturbances are very infrequent on Lake Erie.

Analysis of gage records of Lake Erie indicates that the average period of oscillation for a seiche traveling between Toledo, Ohio, and Buffalo, New York, is approximately 14 to 15 hr. As a result of the greater depth of water at the east end of the lake and the generally higher wind speeds associated with the prevailing westerly winds, the maximum amplitudes of a seiche on Lake Erie occur at Buffalo.

Gages at Buffalo and Toledo indicate that the amplitude of the oscillations of a seiche decays rapidly with each subsequent oscillation. The rise in water level induced by the initial wind setup is greater than any subsequent rise associated with the seiche.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-19 REV 18 10/12 In addition to the general seiche that occurs over the entire lake surface, a local seiche may occur between the west end of Lake Erie and Point Pelee. Local seiches with amplitudes of up to 0.8 ft have been detected from gage records at Toledo and Monroe (Reference 20).

These seiches can occur when the water body is in a state of equilibrium or constant stillwater level.

The stillwater level of Lake Erie near the Fermi site constantly changes in elevation, with respect to the rest of the lake during the PMME. This difference in water levels effectively damps out any seiche activity near the site. It is unlikely, therefore, that any seiche will occur simultaneously with the PMME. Consequently, for design purposes, no rise in water elevation from a seiche is considered.

2.4.5.3. Surge and Seiche Sources The maximum PMME wind tide of 11.4 ft was calculated for the Fermi site with the PMME wind speeds as input to the verified Platzman one-dimensional wind setup model of Lake Erie (Reference 15). As an additional conservatism, the previously accepted wind tide of 11.6 ft was used for design purposes. This value does not include an allowance for cross-lake setup as none is required. Monroe is in the vicinity of the nodal point for cross-lake setup, where the change in stillwater level due to cross

-lake setup is zero.

A total stillwater elevation of +16.4 ft (586.9 ft) was selected as the design maximum. This was based on the PMME defined by the AEC with a storm path along the axis of Lake Erie (N67.5E). Elevation +16.4 ft results from a calculated wind tide of +11.6 ft superimposed on a maximum monthly mean lake level of +4.8 ft. This storm surge would occur at the Fermi site approximately 9 hr after the maximum wind reaches the shore. The storm surge hydrograph resulting from the PMME is shown in Figure 2.4-14. No rise in water elevation resulting from a seiche was used in the design (Subsection 2.4.5.2.3).

2.4.5.4. Wave Action 2.4.5.4.1.

Wind-Generated Waves Wave characteristics are dependent upon wind speed, wind duration, water depth, and fetch length. Generated waves were calculated coincidental with the maximum storm surge hydrograph to determine the maximum flood elevations at the site. Fetch lengths were measured to the site from the axis of the lake (N67.5E), from N78.75E, and from due east (Figure 2.4-15). These fetches, hereafter referred to as degrees clockwise from north, have fetch lengths ranging from 11 to 33 nautical miles. Average lake depths range from 32 to 42 ft during probable maximum stillwater levels.

Using the AEC definition of probable maximum winds, component wind velocity profiles were plotted for fetch directions 67.5 , 78.75, and 90.0 (Figure 2.4-16). Component wind velocities for fetch directions 78.75 and 90.0 were based on the wind velocity profile from 67.5, the path of the storm. The shallow water depths over the fetch approaching the Fermi site preclude deep

-water wave activity; only shallow-water waves are generated during the PMME. The shallow-FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-20 REV 18 10/12 water wave generation curves of Bretschneider (Reference 21) were used to calculate significant wave heights and periods (Figure 2.4-14). The generated wave height and period profiles have a phase shift in time of +1.5 hr over the wind profiles to allow for the generation and travel of waves to the site.

The significant wave height is the normal available parameter from statistical analysis of synoptic weather charts. Approximate relations of the significant wave heights to other parameters of the normal wave spectra in nature have been defined. Assuming that the most probable maximum wave height, H m, is given by the deep water simplified theoretical solution of Equation 2.4-1, then the ratio of H m to H s is 1.8 to 1.

H=0.707 Hlog N (2.4-1) where N = number of waves during a period of steady-state conditions H s = significant wave height This value is conservative, as the wave spectrum curve is flatter for shallow

-water conditions near the Fermi site than for deep-water conditions applicable to the solution. Curves of H m are presented in Figure 2.4-16.2.4.5.4.2.

Design Waves 2.4.5.4.2.1. Selection Bases Selection of design waves depends on the wave climate at the site, the structures being considered, and the available water depths fronting the structures. Generated wave conditions during the PMME occurrence, offshore of the site location (Figure 2.4-16), are propagated shoreward to the various plant structures. In selecting design waves for various structures, the possible range of wave periods, heights, and approach directions during various times of the storm are considered to occur at critical conditions.

2.4.5.4.2.2. Incident Wave at Shoreline The maximum stillwater level and the maximum offshore generated wave height do not occur simultaneously. Therefore, various stillwater levels are considered in selecting the critical wave conditions. The maximum generated wave height, significant wave height, and wave period (offshore of the plant site) are 21.9 ft, 12.2 ft, and 9.0 sec, respectively. These occur during the stillwater level of 582.8 ft, 1.50 hr after the maximum winds have crossed the shoreline (Figure 2.4-14). During the maximum stillwater level of 586.9 ft and 9 hr after the maximum winds have crossed the shoreline, the maximum wave height, significant wave height, and wave period are 14.0 ft, 7.8 ft, and 7.7 sec, respectively. Design waves were generated offshore of the site location from approach directions 67.5 (path of PMME), 78.75 , and 90.0. There should be no significant wave action south of 110 (i.e., normal to the shoreline) during the occurrence of the PMME, as this direction is a 42.5 departure from the wind direction. Waves north of 67.5 also are insignificant because of diminishing fetch length, shallow water depths, and change of direction through wave refraction. An 8-sec wave period generated from 67.5 would approach the plant site FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-21 REV 18 10/12 shoreline from due east because of refraction effects (Figure 2.4

-10). A shorter wave period would not be affected by refraction as much as the 8-sec wave period.

As waves approach the shoreline, they start breaking in water depths approximately equal to their wave heights. Figure 2.4-14 shows breaking wave heights for shoreline toe elevations of 569 ft, 572 ft, and 575 ft. The upper breaking wave height limit considers the effects of wave setup. With continuous heavy wave action breaking against the shoreline, it is possible that the return flow of water lakeward will be slower, thus causing a pileup of water (wave setup) along the shoreline. The possibility of this wave setup was assumed to raise the stillwater level by an amount equal to one-tenth the breaking wave height. With this increase in stillwater level, a slightly higher wave could be supported before breaking. In selecting the proper design wave that can attack the shoreline, Figure 2.4-14 is used. Design H s and H m curves were plotted from the maximum values of Figure 2.4-16. For a particular shoreline or shore barrier toe elevation, the breaking wave height is the controlling factor if it is less than the unbroken wave height during a given stillwater level. In Figure 2.4-14, which includes the storm surge hydrograph, the stillwater level is read off the right-hand ordinate while the wave parameters, H m , H s, and H b, are read off the left-hand ordinate. In using either the significant wave height curve (H s) or the maximum wave height curve (H m), the breaking wave height curve (H b) controls until it intersects (progressing positively from left to right along the TIME axis) the H m or H s curve. Thereafter, the unbroken wave height controls. When using significant wave conditions and a toe elevation of 575.0 ft, the following applies:

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

2.4.5.4.2.3. Transmitted Wave During the occurrence of the PMME, plant grade Elevation 583.0 ft is flooded for approximately 17 hr. Therefore, incident waves attacking the shoreline can be transmitted inland across the flooded plant grade. These transmitted wave heights depend on the available water depth above plant grade, the incident wave characteristics attacking the shoreline, the configuration of the shore barrier, and the location and configuration of other obstacles.

A rock shore barrier has been constructed in front of Fermi 2 along the shore between Plant Coordinate System Grid N6800 and N7800. The rock shore barrier crest elevation is 583 ft nominal; the toe elevation will be 572 ft nominal. For design wave considerations, a design toe elevation of 569.0 ft was used to allow for 3 ft of scour at the toe. Transmitted wave heights (Reference 20) over the shore barrier are shown in Figure 2.4-17 for maximum and significant incident wave heights at the shore barrier. The incident water FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-22 REV 18 10/12 depth at the shore barrier toe and the inland depth of water above a plant grade elevation of 583.0 ft are also indicated in Figure 2.4-17. Using this inland depth of water caused by flooding of plant grade, a curve indicating the maximum wave height that can be supported over the flooded plant grade, without breaking, is presented in Figure 2.4-17. During the maximum flooding of plant grade, the maximum supported wave height is less than the transmitted wave heights. Therefore, the maximum supported wave height is the controlling factor for plant structures located more than a few hundred feet inland from the shoreline. The maximum inland supported wave heights for plant grade Elevation 583.0 and 580.0 ft are 3.0 and 5.4 ft, respectively. The actual site grade at a given location may vary from the reference elevation of 583.0 ft. However, the resultant difference in the hydrostatic pressure due to the difference of supported wave heights would be insignificant. Waves that are transmitted over the shore barrier will attack the office service and radwaste buildings of Fermi 2. These buildings are not Category I structures and, therefore, could be damaged during the storm without causing a safety concern to the public. Small waves can reach the Category I structures by traveling around the northerly and southerly ends of the shore barrier. Waves traveling around the ends of the shore barrier undergo several effects, including the following:

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

The significant wave period of 7.7 sec will approach the plant sites from due east, while lower period waves can approach the northerly end of the shore barrier from 65 (N65E), and possibly approach the southerly end from 110 (E20S). Waves approaching the north end of the shore barrier will be reduced to the maximum inland support wave heights of 3.0 and 5.4 ft for plant grade Elevations 583.0 and 580.0 ft, respectively, in approaching Category I structures. Waves approaching the southerly end of the shore barrier will be reduced in height approaching Category I structures as a result of the maximum inland supported wave height and the protection provided by the office service and turbine buildings. Neglecting any reduction effects from protection provided by the office service and turbine buildings, waves approaching Category I structures from the south will be

reduced to the maximum inland supported wave height of 3.0 ft for the plant grade elevation of 583.0 ft.

2.4.5.4.2.4. Wave Stability In selecting the proper design wave for wave runup and wave forces against Category I structures, the wave period spectra must be considered since the significant wave period might not control. In calculating minimum wave periods, Equation 2.4-2 was used to determine the limiting wave steepness in shallow water (Reference 22).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-23 REV 18 10/12 H L= 1 7 tanh (2.4-2) As mentioned in Subsection 2.4.5.4.2.3, waves attacking Category I structures are controlled by the available water depth over the flooded plant grade elevations. For plant grades with very flat slopes, the maximum supported wave height is approximately 0.78 times the water depth. The plant grade of Fermi 2 is Elevation 583 ft 0 in., and therefore a maximum wave height of 3.0 ft can be supported. Where the plant grade elevation is 580 ft 0 in., a maximum wave height of 5.4 ft can be supported. With the plant grade elevation changing from 580.0 ft to 583.0 ft in the vicinity of Grid N8000, it would be possible for either the 3.0-ft or the 5.4-ft wave to strike the north or east sides of Category I structures. Minimum wave periods calculated for wave heights of 3.0 ft and 5.4 ft are 3.4 sec and 4.5 sec, respectively. The maximum wave period of about 9 sec (Reference 22) is for a significant wave height of 7.8 ft and a significant wave period of 7.7 sec.

2.4.5.5. Resonance Resonance generated by waves can be a problem in enclosed bays or harbors when the natural period of oscillation of the bay is equal to the period of the incident waves. However, the Fermi site is not located in an enclosed embayment. The full exposure of the site to Lake Erie during PMME conditions, plus the flat slopes surrounding the site area, result in a natural period of oscillation of the flooded area that is much greater than that of the incident shallow-water storm waves. Consequently, resonance is not a problem at the site during the PMME occurrence.

2.4.5.6. Runup 2.4.5.6.1.

Flood Levels Refer to Subsection 2.4.2.2 for a discussion of flood levels.

2.4.5.6.2.

Maximum Runup Elevations Maximum runup elevations on the exposed north faces of the reactor/auxiliary building and the RHR complex are 593.0 and 598.0 ft for the 3.0-ft and 5.4-ft waves, respectively. The maximum runup elevation on the exposed south faces of the reactor/ auxiliary building and the RHR complex, the exposed east face of the RHR complex, and the west face of the reactor/auxiliary building is 593.0 ft for the 3.0-ft wave. This wave could possibly reach the west face of the reactor/auxiliary building by reflection from the east face of the RHR complex. The east face of the reactor/auxiliary building is not exposed to waves and wave runup. The west face of the RHR complex is landward of the storm direction and not subject to waves and wave runup. As previously stated, no shore protection is required to preclude flooding of these structures.

2.4.5.6.3.

Wave Forces Maximum wave pressures and forces against Fermi 2 Category I structures can result from a 3.0-ft or possibly a 5.4-ft wave striking the north or east faces of Category I structures.

These wave heights are the maximum supported wave heights for plant grade Elevations FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-24 REV 18 10/12 583.0 and 580.0 ft. Wave pressures and thrusts against smooth vertical walls have been calculated from nonbreaking, broken, and breaking wave conditions. The wave periods have been varied from the minimum wave period to the maximum wave period. The instantaneous impact forces produced by waves breaking against a structure result in intense shock pressure with a duration in the range of 1/100 to 1/1000 sec. The intense pressures occur when a thin cushion is entrapped by waves breaking on a structure.

The breaking wave conditions are calculated from Minikin's formula. In adapting Minikin's formula, unrealistic results are predicted for very flat slopes (slopes fronting a vertical wall).

Therefore, when the actual slope is flatter than 20:1 or even 10:1 (horizontal to vertical), pressures derived from a 20:1 or 10:1 slope should be used. Pressures and thrusts from breaking wave conditions were calculated for both slope conditions. Porous fill material, which can become completely saturated during flooded conditions, is placed from the top of slab elevation of the Category I structure to the plant grade elevation. Therefore, hydrostatic pressures against Category I structures are considered to the depth of the upper surface of the slab of both buildings. Wave pressure and thrust results for the reactor/auxiliary building and the RHR complex are presented in Figures 2.4-18 and 2.4-19. Wave pressure distribution diagrams are presented in Figures 2.4-20 and 2.4-21. The critical static pressure and thrust occur under the broken wave conditions, whereas the critical dynamic pressure and thrust occur under the breaking wave conditions for an assumed slope of 20:1 and the minimum wave periods of 3.4 to 4.5 sec. All Fermi 2 Category I structures are designed to withstand these forces.

2.4.5.7. Protective Structures The importance of the shore barrier in providing protection for Category I structures during the PMME has been greatly reduced from the originally approved concept for the following reasons: a. Category I structures are not susceptible to flooding from storm surge and wave runup b. Category I structures are largely protected by other plant facilities

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

The shore barrier design and location are shown in Figure 2.4-22. The parameters used in the shore barrier design are discussed in detail in this section. The shore barrier ends are to be constructed on a side slope of 3:1 (horizontal to vertical) as compared to the design slope of 2:1 used for the shore barrier. The ends of the shore barrier rubble-mound structures are of FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-25 REV 18 10/12 the same design as determined for the 2:1 slope. Criteria for construction of the multilayered barrier are shown in Figure 2.4-22. The ends have been flattened to a 3:1 slope to ensure that they can withstand conditions more severe than the design conditions. A shore-barrier-slope-stability analysis was performed to deter

-mine the factor of safety against sliding of the shore barrier, and it was concluded that the shore barrier has a sufficient factor of safety with regard to a sliding failure occurring at any soil layer. A report of this analysis was submitted to the NRC in July 1981. The shore barrier, which allows for the possibility of 6 to 8 percent stone displacement during the PMME, extends from Grid N6800 to N7800 and preserves the integrity of the plant site fill placed to Elevation 583.0 ft. The shore barrier, including the ends, consists of a rubble-mound structure using an armor cover of stone. A toe elevation of 572.0 ft, a crest elevation of 583.0 ft, and a lakeward-side slope of 2:1 (horizontal to vertical) were considered in its design. The design wave was based on the probable maximum storm event and a design shore barrier toe elevation of 569 ft, allowing for 3 ft of scour. Hudson's stability equation was used for determining the weights of armor units (Reference 21). Stability coefficients (K D) listed in Reference 21 were used for significant wave conditions and are conservative values based on zero damage criteria for model studies.

By allowing for some shore barrier damage (displacement of armor stones), a higher stability coefficient was used.

An armor cover was calculated using rough angular stone (density 165 lb/ft

3) placed on a 2:1 slope. Using a design toe elevation of 569.0 ft, the maximum significant breaking wave height (Figure 2.4-14) is found to be 12.2 ft during the probable maximum storm event. The possibility of some stone displacement (6 percent to 8 percent) was allowed for, with any displaced stones being replaced after the storm passed. A stability coefficient of 5.0 was used for two layers of stone placed randomly. This results in an armor layer 7.5 ft thick using 3.3-ton to 5-ton stone, as shown in Figure 2.4-22. The secondary layer is 3.5 ft thick with 600-lb to 1000-lb stone, while the filter layer is 1.5 ft thick, consisting of 30-lb to 50-lb stone. Below the filter layer is 1 ft of crushed rock (20 lb and under). Where the plant grade elevation slopes from 580.0 to 583.0 ft, to the north of the Fermi 2 location, the slope is protected against the possibility of breaking 5.4-ft waves during the maximum stillwater level. Protection of the slope is achieved by lining it with suitable rock.

The NRC evaluated the as-built condition of the shore barrier and concluded that it met the requirements of General Design Criterion (GDC) 2 and was, therefore, acceptable on the basis that the inspection and maintenance program required by the Technical Requirements Manual provided reasonable assurance that the shore barrier would not be allowed to deteriorate significantly from its as-built configuration. The Technical Specifications require that the shore barrier be inspected on an annual basis and after major storms and seismic events exceeding operating-basis earthquake (OBE) intensity and be promptly restored to its prior condition in the event of any significant damage.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-26 REV 18 10/12

2.4.6. Probable

Maximum Tsunami Flooding The Fermi site is located in an area of the United States designated as having potentially minor seismic activity. Any tsunami activity in Lake Erie could only be generated by local seismic disturbances. Based on the history of the area, local seismic disturbances would result only in minor excitations in the lake. No tsunami has been recorded in Lake Erie; the only remotely similar phenomena observed have been low-amplitude seiches resulting from sudden barometric pressure differences. The low-amplitude seiches that could occur would be of negligible concern to the site.

2.4.7. Ice Flooding Ice flooding is not a design basis at the Fermi site. The grade elevation of the plant site is at least 10 ft above the normal winter level of Lake Erie, and the emergency supply of water for cooling is not dependent upon natural bodies of water or the operation of intakes located where ice flooding could occur.

2.4.8. Cooling

Water Canals and Reservoirs 2.4.8.1. Canals A discharge canal is provided between the natural draft cooling towers and the circulating water reservoir. The canal is not part of a Category I system and is not safety related or necessary for the safe shutdown of the reactor.

2.4.8.2. Reservoirs An open pond reservoir is provided as a collection basin from the natural draft cooling tower discharge to the circulating water pump house. The reservoir is not part of a Category I system and is not safety related or necessary for the safe shutdown of the reactor.

In addition, a reservoir is provided in the RHR complex. This is a Category I reservoir that is part of a closed cycle system that is not dependent upon natural bodies of water for makeup. The design basis for this complex in relation to water levels is described in Section 3.4.

2.4.9. Channel

Diversions The plant does not use water from channels; therefore, this subsection is not applicable.

2.4.10. Flooding Protection Requirements All safety-related plant features are designed to withstand combinations of flood conditions and wave runup as discussed in Subsections 2.4.2.2 and 2.4.5.4. Protection of safety-related structures and components, including the effects of floods and waves, is discussed in Section 3.4 and Subsection 2.4.5.7.

2.4.11. Low Water Consideration FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-27 REV 18 10/12 2.4.11.1. Low Flow in Rivers and Streams Plant water sources are not related to the flow of rivers and streams in the area, except to the minor extent that these flows affect the general water level of Lake Erie.

2.4.11.2. Low Water Resulting From Surges, Seiches, or Tsunamis 2.4.11.2.1.

Minimum Monthly Mean Lake Level A summary of the historical minimum monthly mean lake levels was recorded by the U.S. Lake Survey during the period 1860 to 1973 and is presented in Figure 2.4-9. The minimum historic monthly mean lake level was reduced by approximately 40 percent of the recorded range of low water conditions (0.9) to give a minimum monthly mean design lake level of

-1.5 ft below Low Water Datum.

2.4.11.2.2.

Wind Setdown Using the computer model prepared by Platzman (Reference 14 and Subsection 2.4.5.1),

values were obtained for winds of varying speed from a westerly direction. Calculations based upon U.S. Weather Bureau data at Asheville, North Carolina, indicate that westerly winds of 70 mph sustained over a period of 6 hr would have a recurrence interval of one in 250 years. Using these values, the decrease in water level resulting from wind setdown at the site would be -9.2 ft (Elevation 561.3 ft). Based upon probable maximum estimates of westerly winds furnished by the AEC, maximum wind setdown of the lake water level was calculated by Platzman's method (Reference 14) as -11.2 ft. The selected design wind setdown is -11.6 ft (Elevation 558.9 ft).

This is identical to the calculated design PMME storm surge except with a minus instead of a plus sign.

2.4.11.2.3.

Local Seiches and Tsunamis For the same reasons as given in Subsections 2.4.5.2.3 and 2.4.6, no decrease in water level is assumed to occur from seiche and tsunami activity.

2.4.11.2.4.

Design Level Assuming that the effect of wind setdown occurs simultaneously with extreme minimum monthly lake levels, the resulting design stillwater level is Elevation -13.1 ft (Low Water Datum), or Elevation 557.4 ft. The cooling water supply for safety-related systems is provided by the RHR complex, which contains its own water reservoir and is independent of ground water or lake-water level conditions. See Subsection 9.2.5 for a discussion of the RHR service water system.

2.4.11.3. Historical Low Water The lowest observed monthly mean lake level during the period of record (1860 to 1973) was during February 1936, when Elevation -1.2 ft (Low Water Datum) was recorded. Low lake levels are generally recorded during the month of February. The most extreme setdown on FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-28 REV 18 10/12 record (1897 to present) was -7.1 ft on March 22, 1955. This level was calculated from gage records obtained at Gibraltar and Toledo. If coincident occurrence of the minimum historical lake level and setdown is assumed (-8.3 ft), a minimum probable low water elevation of 562.2 ft is obtained. The conservatism of the design values is realized by comparing these figures with the respective -1.5-ft and -11.6-ft values that were combined for the design level elevation of -13.1 ft.

2.4.11.4. Future Control There is no future control anticipated for Lake Erie (Reference 23). Drainage improvements on Swan Creek have been made, but no additional controls are planned (Reference 24).

2.4.11.5. Plant Requirements As described in Subsection 9.2.5, the cooling water supply for safety-related systems is provided by the RHR service water system, which contains its own water reservoir and is independent of ground- or lake-water supplies.

The main plant cooling water supply is provided by the circulating water pond (Subsection 10.4.5) and requires only makeup water from Lake Erie.

2.4.11.6. Heat Sink Dependability Requirements The RHR complex contains the ultimate heat sink for Fermi 2, which is the RHR service water system. The RHR complex includes a man

-made structure with a self-contained reservoir and is discussed in Subsection 9.2.5. This service water complex is independent of local water-level conditions.

2.4.12. Environmental Acceptance of Effluents Discharge of liquid radwaste effluents is through a decant line into Lake Erie. The release point is indicated in Figure 2.1-5. Liquid effluent accidentally released at the surface from the plant eventually flows either eastward into Lake Erie or into the north lagoon after percolation downward through the crushed-rock fill. The configuration of the surface-area drainage pattern does not permit flow westward toward inland areas. Since the lagoon drains into the lake via Swan Creek, liquid surficial discharges would ultimately reach and be diluted by waters of Lake Erie. Any percolation into ground water ultimately reaches Lake Erie (Subsection 2.4.13). The locations and users of surface and ground water pertinent to effluent releases from the plant are provided in Subsections 2.4.1.2 and 2.4.13. The effects of plant effluent releases to Lake Erie were examined by calculating dilution factors at the Monroe intake and the Toledo intake. Studies of the currents and dilution capacity of Lake Erie were made by Ayers (Reference 25) who found that except under ice-cover conditions there are two primary current patterns, northward and southward, with a velocity range from 0.1 to 0.3 mph. During ice-cover periods, the current is predominantly southerly with a velocity of less than 0.1 mph. The probable percentages of occurrence of the current patterns are 30 percent, southerly; 50 FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-29 REV 18 10/12 percent, northerly; and 20 percent, phase system. The duration of ice-cover ranges from 1 to 4 months. Based on Ayers' measurements, dilution factors for the Monroe intake and the Toledo intake were estimated and are summarized in Table 2.4-6. The dilution factors were determined using the plant blowdown discharge line into Lake Erie as the effluent release point. The annual average dilution factor was calculated on the basis of 40 percent (southerly) and 60 percent (northerly) current directions, with an ice-cover duration of 2 months occurring during southerly current conditions. Current velocities used in the calculations are 0.394 fps under ice-free conditions and 0.117 fps under ice-cover conditions. The worst condition for dilution factors is based on a southerly current under ice-cover conditions with a current velocity of 0.04 fps. The subsurface diffusion of accidental releases of liquid radioactive effluents is considered in Subsection 2.4.13.

2.4.13. Ground Water 2.4.13.1. Description and Onsite Use Ground water is not used as a source of water supply for the plant. Ground water features are subsequently described.

2.4.13.1.1.

Regional Ground Water Features The project area is located in the eastern lake section of the central lowlands physiographic province (Figure 2.5-1). Bedrock formations dip northwest into the Michigan Basin. They are generally covered by glacial drift deposits that vary considerably in thickness and composition. The bedrock topography at the base of the drift is irregular as a result of erosion and differential scouring by Pleistocene glaciation. The drift deposits range from nearly impervious till to coarse channel deposits of gravel and boulders. To the northwest of the site, drift deposits occur that are sufficiently thick and permeable enough to allow development of ground water. To the south, soluble limestone and dolomite formations compose the principal aquifers. The distribution of these regional aquifers, as described by the USGS (Reference 26), is shown in Figure 2.4-23. Regional aquifers capable of furnishing public ground water supplies do not exist near the site because the bedrock formations are not highly pervious and contain poor quality water. The drift is thin and consists of nearly impervious till. Ground water conditions in Monroe County are described by Sherzer (Reference 27) and by Mozola (Reference 11).

Bordering Lake Erie and surrounding the site area are soils associated with former higher stages of Lake Erie. The soils are thin, generally organic, and do not serve as aquifers. The soil units are described in Subsection 2.5.1.1.2. Geologic units in the site region, principally the bedrock formations, are described in detail in Subsection 2.5.1.1.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-30 REV 18 10/12 2.4.13.1.2.

Local Ground Water Features In the site area, geologic units consist of bedrock formations that are overlain by thin and nearly impervious till and lacustrine deposits (Subsection 2.5.1.2). At the site, the lacustrine and till units have been partially excavated and replaced with crushed

-rock fill (Subsection 2.4.1.1). The till and lacustrine deposits are too thin and impervious to serve as aquifers. They are about 14 ft thick at the site. Descriptions of these deposits are given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.7. The test borings explored the bedrock formations beneath the site to depths of 324.7 ft, penetrating the Bass Islands Group and part of the Salina Group. The formations dip slightly to the northwest (Subsection 2.5.1.2.3.2). The uppermost bedrock formation at the site is the Bass Islands Group; the upper surface of the Bass Islands is erosional and somewhat irregular. It is covered with till and lacustrine deposits less than 20 ft thick. At the site, the upper surface of the Bass Islands is about 550 ft elevation (Subsection 2.5.1.2.2) and exists to a depth of about l00 ft (Figure 2.5-15). It is directly below glacial drift in a 7

-mile-wide band bordering Lake Erie (Figure 2.5-5). The Bass Islands Group consists of thin-bedded, fractured, locally vuggy, gray-brown dolomite, with carbonaceous shale partings. The formation is described in greater detail in Subsection 2.5.1.2.2. The Bass Islands Group comprises a confined aquifer at the site. During the exploration borings program, there was artesian flow from a number of borings penetrating the Bass Islands Group (Figures 2.5-24 through 2.5-56). Ground water in the Bass Islands Group is confined by the overlying till and lacustrine deposits. During construction dewatering, the ground water is drawn down below the confining layer. Below the Bass Islands Group are fractured limestone and dolomite formations of the Salina Group. The Salina Group formations appear to comprise aquifers even in the argillaceous beds because test borings at the plant site encountered artesian flows from them. Water quality was sampled at various zones. The water is highly mineralized. Sulfate content was similar in all formations. Results of the chemical analyses of the zones tested are shown in Table 2.5-16 and discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.2.4. The aquifers receive recharge by infiltration of precipitation on higher ground areas west of the site as indicated by a mapping of the regional ground water level, shown in Figure 2.4-24.

Because the ground water surface approximates the shape of the land surface, water apparently can percolate through the till. The map was prepared from water levels measured in wells completed within the Bass Islands dolomite. These well locations are shown in Figure 2.4-25. Water-level measurement data for the wells are presented in Table 2.4-7. The slope of the water level toward Lake Erie indicates that the lake comprises the ultimate sink for ground water flow. The permeability data developed from pressure tests of borings at the Fermi site are described in Subsection 2.5.4.6. Of 29 tests in four borings, permeability varied from 210 to 2220 ft/yr. The average was 763 ft/yr. Because permeability is developed in rock joints and fractures, it can vary considerably from place to place.

Ground water is not a water supply source for the plant or any of its supporting facilities.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-31 REV 18 10/12 2.4.13.2. Sources All municipal supplies within 25 miles of the site are from streams or lakes (Reference 28). In areas not served by municipal water systems, water supplies for domestic use are generally obtained from private wells. There are no industrial or municipal water wells in the site area (Reference 7). The network of private wells presently in use forms the source of water for domestic and livestock purposes in farms and homes west and north of the site, and for residences in the Stony Point area to the south, where the largest concentration of wells in the area occurs. The distribution of private water wells surrounding the site area is shown in Figure 2.4-26. This figure shows that there are about 4000 wells within 10 miles of the site.

A survey of available drillers' records on approximately 400 wells in the site vicinity, filed at the Michigan Department of Natural Resources, shows that well depths generally do not exceed 70 ft. The wells are 4 to 6 in. in diameter, drilled into dolomite bedrock, and cased only through overburden soils into bedrock. Casings are uncemented, and the remainder of the hole below the casings is left open. Pumps are submersible or centrifugal (suction) type, having a capacity of about 10 gpm or less. The pumpage of water per well is probably on the order of 200 to 400 gal per day, typical of residential use. A certain amount of seasonal variation in water use can be expected because in summer months lawns and gardens are irrigated.

There has been virtually no long-term ground water level decline in the site area. The largest concentration of wells is in Stony Point. Pumping there may have lowered the water levels by 5 to 10 ft, on the basis of water levels reported on numerous drillers' logs since the 1940s.

The radius of influence of pumping from these wells cannot be detected more than 1 mile away from Stony Point, on the basis of water-level data. Pumping from an onsite rock quarry operation in 1969-1972 caused a temporary lowering of water level. Pumping was terminated in June 1972 and the abandoned quarry was allowed to fill with ground water.

The piezometric surface in the vicinity of the quarry returned to its normal level by the summer of 1973. The ground water level was monitored during the quarry dewatering and the data are shown in Table 2.4-7. Water level in the quarry is now approximately at land surface. At the site, the confining layers have been stripped to permit the excavation for subgrade structures constructed in the aquifer. Backfill around the completed structures will not permit percolation into the aquifer at the site (Subsection 2.4.1.1). The water use trend in the area is from ground water to surface water. The low transmissibility of the formation will not permit large

-yielding water wells. Undesirable water quality is typical. As described in Subsection 2.5.1.2.9 and noted on boring logs, the ground water is high in sulfate content and hydrogen sulfide. Many neighboring communities, for example Woodland Beach and Berlin Township, have recently abandoned individual water wells in favor of a surface-water treatment-distribution system. Because surface water is available from nearby municipal systems for the communities in the area, the trend of increasing surface

-water use and decreasing ground water use can be expected to continue in dense population areas. Isolated homesites, as on farms, will probably continue to use ground water.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-32 REV 18 10/12 Because of the trend toward decreasing use of ground water, it is improbable that any significant change in ground water gradient will occur from well pumping. The gradient is to the east, toward Lake Erie. There are no domestic wells downgradient from the site. If, for any reason, a reversal of ground water gradient from the site to the water wells were to occur, it would have to be for some reason other than pumping from the wells. This is true because, in order to create a gradient from the site to the water wells, the water level at the wells would have to be drawn down below their depth. It is therefore considered highly improbable that there will be any ground water condition in the future resulting in gradient reversal from the site toward the water wells.

The regional lakeward gradient is shown on the contour map of Figure 2.4-25. Water-level data used to prepare the map are shown in Table 2.4-7. Water levels at the site were depressed as a result of dewatering for Fermi 2 quarry operation. Prior to construction of Fermi 2, water flowed naturally from many of the borings in the area, as indicated on the boring logs in Figures 2.5

-24 through 2.5

-56. On the basis of the above

-grade static level implied by these flows and water levels in wells in peripheral areas, it is suggested that ground water level at the site is normally above 575 ft.

Water levels in wells fluctuate seasonally, generally highest in spring and lowest in fall.

Seasonal fluctuations are not related to Lake Erie fluctuations, although seasonal peaks are somewhat coincidental. The Lake Erie fluctuations are of lower magnitude (Subsection 2.4.2) than ground water fluctuations. It is suggested that the fluctuations coincide because both water bodies respond to the same influences of recharge and evapotranspiration. Water

-level fluctuations in the site vicinity since 1970 are provided by the data in Table 2.4

-7. The nearest government agency observation well is approximately 20 miles to the west, in the Dundee area.

It is monitored by the USGS. Because the well is completed in glacial drift, water-level fluctuations in the well cannot be considered representative of water

-level fluctuations that would occur in the bedrock formation wells in the site area.

Flow rates within the aquifer are highly variable, owing to the fractured and jointed nature of the bedrock. The width, density, and directional pattern of openings can vary from place to place, as indicated by exposures of rock in excavations of the Fermi 2 site and in the onsite rock quarry to the south. An average velocity of flow in the bedrock aquifer is derived on the following basis: Porosity, n = 0.01, conservatively assumed (Reference 29) Permeability, k = 2 ft/day, from tests in borings Hydraulic gradient , I = , =0.0012, determined between wells 17M2 and 17Q1 (12/31/1973) Velocity, V = kI/n = 0.24 ft/day It is noted that the natural water

-level gradient at the site is not available owing to construction dewatering at Fermi 2.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-33 REV 18 10/12 2.4.13.3. Accident Effects Ground water conditions of the site (Subsection 2.4.13.1) consist of a bedrock aquifer confined under artesian pressure beneath a cap of relatively impervious glacial deposits.

Under natural conditions, the ground water gradient is toward Lake Erie. Ground water moves in this direction and eventually discharges into the lake by moving upward through till and lake-bottom sediments.

In the unlikely event of an earthquake, minor cracking in the walls of at least the subgrade portion of the radwaste building structure could occur. The radwaste liquid storage tanks could also undergo stress cracking and leaking to allow fluid flow between the interior of the structure and the surrounding earth. Initially, liquid would be retained within the structure and diluted by inflowing ground water from the dolomite aquifer in contact with the structure. There would be a slow inflow of ground water and the water level inside the structure would rise until it attained the elevation of the piezometric level of the aquifer, approximately Elevation 575.0 ft. At this time, the radioactive material will have been diluted 10:1 or greater. The time required to fill the structure would be on the order of 3 to 4 weeks. This length of time is determined on the basis of the following information:

a. During construction dewatering of the reactor building basement, pumping was stopped overnight and on weekends. The excavation became flooded up to 3 ft as a result of inflowing ground water. On one such occasion, the water-level rise in the excavation was measured. The rate of rise was 0.0281 ft/hr b. It is assumed that this same rate of rise could occur in the radwaste building excavation, but adjusted to account for the space occupied by masonry and equipment, which is approximately one-third of the total floor area. The adjusted rate of rise is somewhat higher, almost 0.042 ft/hr
c. The rate of rise decreases continuously as the water level in the structure approaches ground water level. The assumption of a steady rate of water level rise of 0.042 ft/hr is therefore conservative. During the 3- to 4-week period during which water is rising in the structure, equipment can be mobilized for pumping, storage, processing, and disposal of radioactive material. If the structure is allowed to fill completely, diluted material would move into and through the aquifer at the same rate of flow and direction of movement as the existing ground water in the aquifer. The direction of movement would be to the east at a rate of 0.24 ft/day (Subsection 2.4.13.2). The length of time required to travel the 460-ft distance from the structure to the Lake Erie shoreline is 1920 days. By this time, the specific activity of the radioactive material will have been below the limits set forth in 10 CFR 20. (For details of this accident analysis, see Subsection 15.7.3.) For a discussion of flood protection of the onsite storage building, see Subsection 11.7.2.2.5.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-34 REV 18 10/12 2.4.13.4. Monitoring and Safeguard Requirements It was demonstrated in Subsection 2.4.13.2 that no water wells are located downgradient from the site. As part of the operational radiological environmental monitoring program, Edison will measure the water level monthly in existing observation wells. The comparison of the data will show flow reversal if it occurs. Should a reversal in flow occur, grab samples would be taken and analyzed for gross beta and gamma isotopes if a path is available from the plant to the ground water. Results would be reported in accordance with the requirements of the Technical Specifications 5.6.2 and 5.6.3. Under accident conditions, postulated in Subsection 2.4.13.3, monitoring wells will be drilled between the affected structures and the Lake Erie shoreline to monitor subsurface travel and dispersion of radioactive material. Exploratory drilling experience at the Fermi site indicates that truck

-mounted drilling rigs are available from Detroit and Toledo and that an observation well could be drilled within several days.

2.4.13.5. Design Bases for Subsurface Hydrostatic Loadings As described in Subsection 2.4.13.2, the natural ground water level at the site is on the order of 575 ft. As a conservative value for computing normal subsurface hydrostatic loadings, the ground water level is assumed to be 576.0 ft. Because of the ground-level conditions, construction dewatering is necessary during all major building excavations. In the Fermi 2 construction, dewatering was done by sump pumps placed in the excavations. At the reactor building, grout curtains were installed to minimize ground water inflow and to prevent seepage that would cause falling rock from the walls of the excavations. The Fermi 2 reactor building excavation is 204 by 154 ft, with floor elevations of 540.0 and 551.0 ft. Bedrock beneath the structure is dolomite, and was pressure grouted for added strength. The dewatering does not affect the structural integrity of the rock. All major safety

-related structures have their foundations on bedrock and not within the overburden soils or drif t (Subsection 2.5.4.11). Water supply wells will not be used at the facility.

2.4.14. Technical Specifications and Emergency Operation Requirements Fermi 2, together with its associated safety

-related facilities, is designed to function in a safe manner despite the occurrence of any of the adverse hydrologic events previously discussed. These events have been postulated to occur in appropriate combinations, and such provisions for the safe operation of the plant have been incorporated into the design.

2.4.14.1. Flooding The probable maximum water levels in Swan Creek resulting from precipitation or flood are discussed in Subsection 2.4.3. These levels are less than those anticipated from the probable maximum surge on Lake Erie.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.4-35 REV 18 10/12 2.4.14.2. Dam Failures Potential dam failures are discussed in Subsection 2.4.4. It has been found that there are no regulatory structures on Swan Creek. In addition, there are no dams on other streams and rivers in southeastern Michigan, the failure of which would affect water levels in Lake Erie along the plant shoreline.

2.4.14.3. Surge and Seiche Flooding The PMME is caused by storm surge. This event, discussed in Subsection 2.4.5, causes a stillwater level at the site of 586.9 ft, or 3.9 ft above plant grade elevation. As described, the Category I structures are designed for the PMME flood level plus runup from small waves generated on the flooded site. The openings in the structures are watertight and designed for the high-water levels.

The water levels associated with the seiche, discussed in Subsection 2.4.5, have been found to be less than the storm surge.

2.4.14.4. Tsunami Tsunami is discussed in Subsection 2.4.6. Water levels associated with this event have been found to be less than for the storm surge.

2.4.14.5. Ice Flooding Ice flooding is discussed in Subsection 2.4.7.

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.4 HYDROLOGIC

ENGINEERING REFERENCES 2.4-36 REV 18 10/12

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.4 HYDROLOGIC

ENGINEERING REFERENCES 2.4-37 REV 18 10/12

20. I. A. Hunt, Winds, Wind Setups and Seiches on Lake Erie, Research Report 1-2, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 59 pages, 1959.
21. Shore Protection, Planning and Design, Technical Report No. 4, U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center, U.S. Army, 571 pages, 1966.
22. R. L. Wiegel, Oceanographic Engineering, Prentice-Hall, 1964
23. C. Gilbert, North Central Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Chicago, Ill., Oral Communication.
24. D. Burton, Monroe County Drain Commission, Monroe, Michigan, Oral Communication.
25. J. C. Ayers, Hydrographic Studies of the Lagoona Beach Embayment, Great Lakes Research Institute, University of Michigan.
26. C. L. McGuiness, The Role of Ground Water in the National Water Situation, USGS Water Supply, Paper No. 1809, p. 1121, 1963.
27. W. H. Sherzer, Geological Survey of Michigan's Lower Peninsula, 1896-1900, Geologic Report on Monroe County, Michigan, Vol. VII, Part 1, Michigan Geological Survey, 1900.
28. Anonymous, Data on Public Water Supplies in Michigan.
29. D. K. Todd, Ground Water Hydrology, p. 336, John Wiley & Sons, 1959.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-1 ESTIMATED DISCHARGE FREQUENCY - SWAN CREEK Recurrence Interval (years)

Maximum Discharge (ft 3/sec) 2 2250 5 3500 10 4500 20 5800 50 7700 100 9300 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-2 SYNTHESIZED LOCAL MAXIMUM PRECIPITATION a Time (hr) Cumulative Rainfall (in.)

1/4 Incremental Rainfall (in.)

4.9 4.9 1/2 7.0 2.1 3/4 8.8 1.8 1 10.2 1.4 2 14.3 4.1 3 18.0 3.7 4 21.3 3.3 5 24.2 2.9 6 26.9 2.7 12 29.2 2.3 18 31.0 1.8 24 32.4 1.4 30 33.2 0.8 36 33.8 0.6 42 34.3 0.5 48 34.7 0.4 a Data from Reference 5.

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

b Data from Reference 5.

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

.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-5 Basin U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS UNIT HYDROGRAPHS Station Drainage Area (mi 2) q p t p C p 640 C t (LL ca)0.3 L L ca t r (hr) Swan Creek aMouth, Michigan 109 36.7 12.3 451 2 6.14 25.4 16.67 2 Cedar River East Lansing, Michigan 355 7.6 36.5 279 5.1 7.1 37 18 6 Sandusky River Bucyrus, Ohio 89.8 27.1 21.0 569 3.39 6.2 27.5 16.3 6 Sebewaing River Sebewaing, Michigan 105 28.46 11.0 313 2.50 4.44 16 9 6 Juscarawas

River Massillon, Ohio 507 8.06 44.4 358 6.34 7.0 41.0 16.0 6 Clinton River Mt. Clemens, Michigan 733 17.5 22.2 441 3.81 6.62 32 17 6 Grand River Lansing, Michigan 1230 6.8 38.5 260 3.4 11.2 75 42 6 a Synthetic unit hydrograph.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-6 DILUTION FACTOR ESTIMATES - LAKE ERIE INTAKES Normal Conditions South Current North Current Annual Worst Average Condition Location Ice-Free Ice-Cover Ice-Free Monroe intake Ice-Cover 320 290 1.6 x 1011 1.0 x 1010 770 26 Toledo intake 1.6 x 1016 9.0 x 1012 3.1 x 1025 1.1 x 1022 5.4 x 1013 4.3 x 105 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

R1 Date 5S/8E-36R1 b 77 594.0 9/9/64 597.6 4/28/72 D1 5S/9E-2D1 b 33 590.0 5/20/65 588.11 4/28/72 J1 6S/9E-11J1b -- 581.22 2/3/72 K1 6S/9E-13K1 -- 577.02 12/29/70 577.25 12/30/70 576.68 10/22/71 C1 6S/9E-23C1 35 580.74 2/3/72 583.0 11/13/54 K1 6S/9E-23K1 95 572.0 11/24/69 570.64 9/8/70 Q16S/9E-23Q1 c 76 572.0 11/6/69 575.4 9/8/70 574.65 10/27/70 576.39 12/29/70 575.8 2/26/71 577.0 3/26/71 576.25 4/30/71 576.3 5/28/71 574.8 7/2/71 573.0 7/30/71 572.8 8/24/71 573.52 10/22/71 572.3 10/30/71 579.13 4/28/72 C1 6S/9E-24C1 -- 576.87 12/29/70 Q16S/9E-24Q1 c 50 575.0 9/19/69 574.76 9/8/70 573.84 10/27/70 575.97 12/29/70 573.4 11/5/71 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date 573.4 12/3/71 574.4 1/7/72 575.4 2/4/72 576.1 3/3/72 579.8 4/7/72 580.5 4/21/72 580.73 4/29/72 582.15 5/26/72 578.57 6/23/72 578.23 7/7/72 577.73 8/23/72 578.57 10/6/72 581.90 11/24/72 582.07 12/29/72 Q2 6S/9E-24Q2 70 571.0 11/6/53 Q3 6S/9E-24Q3 65 577.0 6/13/53 R1 6S/9E-24R1 127.5 577.0 3/27/51 L1 6S/9E-25L1 32 568.0 8/2/56 L2 6S/9E-25L2 45 572.0 7/9/52 L3 6S/9E-25L3 41.5 570.0 4/28/50 L4 6S/9E-25L4 50.5 565.0 7/3/50 L5 6S/9E-25L5 28.5 572.0 6/17/53 575.04 2/3/72 M1 6S/9E-25M1 49.5 574.0 4/17/53 M1A 6S/9E-25M1A 37 570.0 10/18/55 M2 6S/9E-25M2 39 575.0 4/12/48 6S/9E-35H1 34.5 569.0 1/20/49 J1 6S/10E-6J1b 52 575.0 8/31/63 Q1 6S/10E-6Q1 b 55 570.0 10/17/53 Q2 6S/10E-6Q2 b 56.5 575.0 7/3/47 A1 6S/10E-7A1b 55 576.0 9/18/53 A2 6S/10E-7A2b 116 570.0 12/12/69 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 3 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date 570.7 2/3/72 H1 6S/10E-7H1 b 52 567.0 6/12/56 K1 6S/10E-7K1 b 67 576.0 6/6/68 L1 6S/10E-7L1b 35 572.0 7/1/50 J1 6S/10E-8J1b 49 575.0 12/21/55 K1 6S/10E-8K1 b 36 571.0 11/26/57 R1 6S/10E-8R1 b 51 571.0 1/30/66 570.63 9/8/70 570.03 2/3/72 B1 6S/10E-16B1b 52 572.0 C1 6S/10E-16C1 49 570.0 6/25/54 F1 6S/10E-17F1 59 562.0 2/17/64 568.91 9/8/70 M2 6S/10E-17M2 -- 567.59 10/27/70 571.75 2/3/72 P16S/10E-18P1 c 60 572.1 9/8/70 571.84 12/30/70 576.3 2/26/71 576.6 1/26/71 573.2 5/28/71 18P16S/10E-19P1 c -- 574.0 7/2/71 575.0 7/29/71 573.25 8/27/71 573.30 9/24/71 573.30 10/30/71 571.2 12/3/71 573.5 1/7/72 573.6 2/4/72 574.0 3/3/72 577.3 4/7/72 578.3 4/21/72 576.67 4/29/72 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 4 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date 579.00 5/26/72 576.92 6/23/72 576.17 7/7/72 573.50 8/25/72 576.58 10/6/72 581.17 11/24/72 581.50 12/29/72 R1 6S/10E-18R1 80 573.49 9/8/70 569.24 10/27/70 569.56 12/29/70 B1 6S/10E-19B1 65 577.0 12/22/64 6S/10E-19B2 B2 65 583.0 2/17/69 576.86 9/8/70 571.86 10/27/70 568.94 12/29/70 583.0 2/17/69 576.42 9/8/70 571.42 10/27/70 568.3 12/29/70 571.33 8/6/71 570.26 8/27/71 570.21 9/24/71 570.14 10/30/71 570.94 12/10/71 570.94 1/7/72 571.84 2/4/72 572.34 3/3/72 575.02 4/7/72 578.19 4/21/72 576.69 4/29/72 576.76 5/26/72 574.69 6/23/72 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 5 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date 573.69 7/7/72 573.94 10/6/72 579.11 11/24/72 B3 6S/10E-19B3 45 581.0 10/30/53 G1 6S/10E-19G1 -- 591.0 3/2/56 H16S/10E-19H1 c -- 570.7 5/12/71 570.4 6/1/71 570.75 7/2/71 570.32 8/2/71 570.21 8/27/71 570.57 10/1/71 569.8 11/5/71 569.5 12/3/71 570.25 12/23/71 572.0 1/31/72 571.3 2/25/72 573.0 3/14/72 574.4 4/7/72 578.0 4/21/72 576.67 4/29/72 575.58 5/26/72 573.25 6/23/72 572.50 7/7/72 570.67 8/25/72 572.67 10/6/72 578.17 11/24/72 578.92 12/29/72 M1 6S/10E-19M1 56 580.0 5/17/68 570.03 9/8/70 572.36 2/3/72 M2 6S/10E-19M2 40.5 580.0 12/8/45 M3 6S/10E-19M3 31 582.0 4/12/49 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 6 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

P1 Date 6S/10E-19P1 58 569.0 10/6/64 R1 6S/10E-19R1 45 566.72 9/8/70 573.94 4/28/72 P16S/10E-20P1 c 84 568.0 3/18/70 568.0 4/1/70 567.3 5/6/70 559.8 8/10/70 562.2 8/19/70 563.58 3/1/71 565.38 4/1/71 562.58 5/3/71 554.48 6/1/71 548.38 7/1/71 544.78 7/23/71 Destroyed -- P26S/10E-20P2 c -- 568.0 3/18/70 567.2 5/6/70 564.3 6/25/70 563.9 7/30/70 563.8 8/18/70 566.92 3/1/71 567.62 4/1/71 565.92 5/3/71 564.52 6/1/71 559.12 7/1/71 556.77 8/2/71 552.02 8/27/71 551.81 10/1/71 550.94 11/5/71 549.61 12/3/71 549.14 12/23/71 E1 6S/10E-20E1 62 583.0 10/27/70 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 7 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date 585.18 4/28/72 E2 6S/10E-20E2 -- 580.51 12/29/70 N1 6S/10E-20N1 53.5 565.0 5/26/50 C1 6S/10E-28C1 58 569.0 12/12/50 D1 6S/10E-28D1 39 568.19 10/22/71 D2 6S/10E-28D2 51.5 571.0 3/12/51 E16S/10E-28E1 c -- 567.97 9/8/70 567.88 10/27/70 569.84 12/29/70 571.5 2/26/71 572.1 3/26/71 571.75 4/30/71 570.4 5/28/71 568.5 7/2/71 566.0 7/30/71 566.17 8/27/71 565.82 9/24/71 565.9 10/30/71 566.17 12/3/71 567.5 1/7/72 569.3 2/4/72 570.84 3/3/72 572.1 4/7/72 572.8 4/21/72 572.42 4/29/72 571.50 5/26/72 570.00 6/23/72 569.58 7/7/72 569.17 8/25/72 570.92 10/6/72 573.00 11/24/72 573.42 12/29/72 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 8 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

E2 Date 6S/10E-28E2 74.5 574.5 6/30/51 E3 6S/10E-28E3 43 577.0 5/1/56 E4 6S/10E-28E4 56.5 575.0 4/19/52 E5 6S/10E-28E5 51 572.0 7/28/65 E6 6S/10E-28E6 -- 568.8 10/22/71 E7 6S/10E-28E7 -- 569.4 10/22/71 576.4 5/1/72 F1 6S/10E-28F1 68 573.0 11/20/67 571.81 10/22/71 M1 6S/10E-28M1 68 572.0 5/17/49 A1 6S/10E-29A1 -- 566.52 10/22/71 570.65 4/28/72 B16S/10E-29B1 c -- 567.45 7/1/70 567.42 8/3/70 566.22 9/1/70 566.37 10/1/70 566.87 11/2/70 567.07 12/2/70 567.17 1/4/71 566.6 2/1/71 568.57 3/1/71 569.57 4/1/71 568.43 5/3/71 567.87 6/1/71 565.97 7/1/71 564.82 8/2/71 564.15 8/27/71 564.15 10/1/71 563.57 11/5/71 563.57 12/3/71 563.77 12/23/71 564.57 1/31/72 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 9 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date 563.87 2/25/72 564.37 3/14/72 565.27 4/7/72 566.24 4/21/72 566.40 4/29/72 567.07 5/26/72 564.99 6/23/72 564.90 7/7/72 566.24 8/25/72 567.07 10/6/72 569.74 11/24/72 570.07 12/29/72 D1 6S/10E-29D1 28.5 570.0 10/2/54 563.25 10/22/71 567.45 4/28/72 E1 6S/10E-29E1 38.5 572.0 7/16/53 E2 6S/10E-29E2 31 567.0 8/31/55 E3 6S/10E-29E3 60.5 572.0 7/13/62 E4 6S/10E-29E4 40 572.2 1970 562.4 10/22/71 H1 6S/10E-29H1 39 571.0 H2 6S/10E-29H2 38.5 569.0 10/15/47 J1 6S/10E-29J1 37 570.0 5/27/60 J2 6S/10E-29J2 35 567.0 6/4/56 570.55 2/3/72 J3 6S/10E-29J3 35 572.0 1/8/53 J4 6S/10E-29J4 74 566.0 11/18/52 J5 6S/10E-29J5 46 568.0 7/25/64 J6 6S/10E-29J6 40 572.0 6/2/52 J7 6S/10E-29J7 45 571.0 6/13/53 J8 6S/10E-29J8 28 572.0 4/12/49 J9 6S/10E-29J9 38 570.0 5/13/50 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 10 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

J10 Date 6S/10E-29J10 31 570.0 7/29/53 J11 6S/10E-29J11 36 572.0 6/14/57 K1 6S/10E-29K1 30 575.0 3/19/52 K2 6S/10E-29K2 47 573.0 6/7/63 Q1 6S/10E-29Q1 40 566.0 R1 6S/10E-29R1 30 573.0 4/18/57 R2 6S/10E-29R2 50 564.0 11/16/54 B1 6S/10E-30B1 60 569.0 10/7/68 C1 6S/10E-30C1 40 569.0 11/26/63 568.93 2/3/72 E1 6S/10E-30E1 29 571.0 8/8/45 H1 6S/10E-30H1 42.5 570.0 9/18/65 H2 6S/10E-30H2 49 572.0 10/28/57 A1 6S/10E-32A1 49 570.0 6/7/56 A2 6S/10E-32A2 41.5 575.0 6/11/51 P26S/10E-20P2 c 546.94 1/31/72 547.14 2/25/72 540.34 3/14/72 537.99 4/7/72 540.77 4/21/72 541.86 4/29/72 542.94 5/26/72 539.11 6/23/72 540.44 7/7/72 552.86 8/25/72 557.19 10/6/72 561.52 11/24/72 564.69 12/29/72 P3 6S/10E-20P3 62 576.0 12/15/65 551.55 7/25/72 E16S/10E-21E1 c 42 557.91 7/1/70 559.59 8/3/70 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 11 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date 555.02 9/1/70 555.74 10/1/70 556.74 11/2/70 556.60 12/2/70 556.94 1/4/71 556.1 2/1/71 557.14 3/1/71 556.94 4/1/71 555.49 5/3/71 556.54 6/1/71 555.94 7/1/71 555.99 8/2/71 556.53 8/28/71 557.12 10/1/71 556.24 11/5/71 556.24 12/3/71 556.64 12/23/71 558.14 1/31/72 559.44 2/25/72 559.64 3/14/72 562.16 4/7/72 562.99 4/21/72 561.91 4/29/72 561.99 5/26/72 564.16 6/23/72 563.99 7/7/72 560.32 8/25/72 560.37 10/6/72 560.91 11/24/72 563.74 12/29/72 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 12 of 12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.4-7 Map Reference WATER WELL DATA a Number Well Number Elevation of Depth (ft)

Water Level (ft)

Date a Shown in Figure 2.4

-25. b Not shown in Figure 2.4

-25. c Monitor wells are underlined.

Explanation of well numbering system:

The well locations are identifiable by the well number. The well numbering system, which is commonly used by water resource agencies, including the U.S. Geological Survey, designates the location of the well within a 40-acre parcel of land. The standard one

-square-mile section is subdivided into 40

-acre parcels as follows:

D C B A E F G H M L K J N P Q R As an example, suppose a given well is located as follows:

a. Township 7 South b. Range 10 East c. Section 32 d. northeast corner. That well would be given the number, 7S/10E

-32A1. The number 1 following the letter A indicates that this is the first well inventoried in the 40

-acre parcel lettered A. All the wells within the immediate vicinity of the site are shown in Figure 2.4

-25. These wells are identified and located by the last two digits of the previously described well numbering system and listed under the heading, "MAP Reference Number."

FERMI 2 UFSAR FIGURE 2.4

-8 HAS BEEN DELETED THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-1 REV 16 10/09

2.5. GEOLOGY

AND SEISMOLOGY The Fermi site is located on the shore of the western end of Lake Erie at Lagoona Beach, Frenchtown Township, Monroe County, Michigan. Geologic and seismic studies of the Fermi site were conducted for Fermi 2 in 1968 and 1969. Detailed foundation studies were performed for the Fermi 2 reactor/auxiliary building in 1969, and rock foundation grouting for these structures was performed in 1970. Detailed foundation studies were performed in 1972 for the Fermi 2 residual heat removal (RHR) complex. Foundation grouting for the RHR complex has been completed. The geologic, seismic, and foundation studies for Fermi 2 were conducted by Dames & Moore (D&M) with the results of a few of the studies presented in the Fermi 2 PSAR. The location of Fermi 2 is shown in Figure 2.4-1. The topography of the site with the location of the principal plant facilities is shown in Figure 2.4-3. The site is located within the Central Stable Region tectonic province of the North American continent. Some regional faulting and seismic activity is known, but the region is characteristically one of relative stability. There are no known faults within 25 miles of the site and there are no capable faults within 200 miles of the site. Approximately 3100 ft of Paleozoic sedimentary rocks overlie the Precambrian basement in the area. Overlying the Paleozoic sedimentary rock strata are Pleistocene soils of glacial origin that are less than 20 ft thick at the site. The site is located on the southeast side of the Michigan Basin. The sedimentary rock strata generally dip to the northwest toward the center of the Michigan Basin. The bedrock immediately underlying the site consists of dolomites of the Bass Islands Group of the Silurian System. The Bass Islands Group is competent dolomite with thin shale beds and is variably fractured and contains some vuggy zones. No geologic conditions are known that could have an adverse effect on the safety of plant facilities.

All major Fermi 2 Category I structures are supported in the Bass Islands dolomite.

Foundation pressure grouting of the bedrock was performed to improve subsurface conditions. A test blasting program was conducted, and blast monitoring was provided during construction. Criteria for foundation treatment and design were formulated, based on foundation studies performed at the locations of Category I and other major structures. All Category I structures are designed to respond to peak horizontal ground accelerations of the rock surface at foundation levels of 8 and 15 percent of gravity for the operating-basis earthquake (OBE) and safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE), respectively. Site-related response spectra were used to analyze the response of structures to earthquake ground motion.

The results of the geologic and seismic studies for Fermi 2 are summarized in Subsections 2.5.1 through 2.5.3. The stability of subsurface materials at the locations of Fermi 2 Category I and major structures is summarized in Subsection 2.5.4.

2.5.1. Basic

Geologic and Seismic Information Basic geologic and seismic data were obtained by D&M for the Fermi site from 1968 through 1972 in three major programs:

a. Geologic and seismic studies in 1968 for the Fermi 2 site FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-2 REV 16 10/09 b. Foundation studies in 1969 for the reactor/auxiliary building
c. Foundation studies in 1972 for the RHR complex. The general scope of these studies is outlined in the following paragraphs.

The geologic and seismic program of investigation conducted in 1968 at the Fermi site for Fermi 2 (Reference 1) included the following:

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

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

a. Test boring program
b. Water pressure testing in selected borings
c. Ground water observations d. Ground water sampling. Laboratory testing during this investigation consisted of density and unconfined compression tests on selected rock cores and chemical analyses of ground water.

In 1972, a comprehensive foundation investigation was performed at the location of the Fermi 2 RHR complex (Reference 3). The field exploration program consisted of the following:

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-3 REV 16 10/09 Laboratory testing for this investigation consisted of pulsating load triaxial tests, unconfined compression tests, consolidation tests, moisture-density tests on soil samples, and unconfined compression tests on rock cores. Supplementary seismic evaluations were completed for the Fermi 2 site in October 1982 by Weston Geophysical Corporation. These evaluations led to the establishment of facility site specific response spectra that were subsequently used to validate the satisfactory nature of the original facility design-basis earthquake provisions. The site-specific earthquake was characterized in terms of Richter magnitude (from 4.9 to 5.9) and epicentral distance (25 km). Site

-specific response spectra were developed from real

-time histories for the appropriate magnitude and distance, and foundation conditions similar to the Fermi site.

(Weston Geophysical Corporation, Draft Site Specific Response Spectra for Enrico Fermi 2; October 1982.)

2.5.1.1. Regional Geology 2.5.1.1.1.

Physiography The Fermi site is located in the northern portion of the midwestern United States in the Central Lowlands Physiographic Province. This physiographic province has been subdivided into eight physiographic sections. Michigan is located in the Eastern Lake Section (Figure

2.5-1). The Eastern Lake Section is characterized by glacial landforms (including end moraines, ground moraines, outwash plains, kames, eskers, and drumlins) and by beach and lacustrine deposits formed during the fluctuations of the Great Lakes. The glacial deposits overlie maturely dissected bedrock cuestas and broad areas of relatively flat-lying bedrock. The bedrock is exposed locally. The bedrock surface was dissected prior to being covered with glacial drift. The rock surface tends to be gently rolling with well

-developed valley systems.

The Fermi site is located on a lake plain formed during the high-water stages of Lake Erie. There is little topographic relief on the lake plain, which results in poor surface drainage. It has been dissected by eastward-flowing creeks and rivers. The relief on the lake plain within the vicinity of the project area is approximately 25 ft.

2.5.1.1.2.

Stratigraphy 2.5.1.1.2.1. Soil Units The soil units in the region include Pleistocene-aged deposits consisting of alluvium, lacustrine materials, peats, tills, outwash, glaciofluvial materials, glaciolacustrine materials, and residual soil. Figure 2.5-2 shows the distribution of surface Pleistocene glacial deposits of the southern peninsula of Michigan and portions of surrounding states. The site area is located in a glaciolacustrine section on the western edge of Lake Erie. The distribution of surface soil units within eastern Monroe County is shown in Figure 2.5-3. The soil deposits in Monroe County range in thickness from 0 to over 150 ft (Reference 4).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-4 REV 16 10/09 2.5.1.1.2.2. Rock Units The distribution of the rock units that form the bedrock surface within the region is shown in Figure 2.5-4 and the stratigraphic sequence of the various-aged rock units is shown in the legend. The rock units in the Michigan Basin consist of sedimentary strata of Jurassic, Pennsylvanian, Mississippian, Devonian, Silurian, Ordovician, and Cambrian ages, as well as an igneous and/or metamorphic complex of Precambrian-aged rocks.

The sedimentary sequence in the Monroe County area includes Devonian- through Cambrian-aged strata. The local distribution of these strata is shown in Figure 2.5-5. These strata consist of 2500 to 3500 ft of limestones, dolomites, sandstones, and shales. The Precambrian basement in southeastern Michigan consists of crystalline rocks of igneous and metamorphic origin (Reference 4) and occurs at a depth of about 3100 ft.

2.5.1.1.3.

Structural Geology The Fermi site is located within the Central Stable Region tectonic province of the North American continent. This tectonic province is characterized by a thick sequence of sedimentary strata overlying the Precambrian basement. The Precambrian basement is exposed in Wisconsin, Minnesota, and the upper peninsula of Michigan. During Paleozoic and early Mesozoic time, the area was subjected to a series of vertical crustal movements that formed broad basins and arches. The arches and basins have been modified by local folding and faulting. Major geologic structures are shown in Figures 2.5-6 and 2.5-7. The relation between structures and gravimetric and magnetic anomalies is discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.1.5.2.2.5.1.1.3.1. Folding The distribution of major folds in the region is shown in Figure 2.5-6 and the characteristics of these folds are presented in Table 2.5-1. The Fermi site is located on the southeast side of the Michigan Basin, which corresponds to the northwest flank of the northeast-trending Findlay Arch. Ells (Reference 5) has proposed the name "Washtenaw Anticlinorium" to describe a broad northwesterly plunging structure in southeast Michigan that is composed of several smaller folds. This broad structural feature covers about 4500 square miles within Michigan and continues into Ohio, Ontario, and Lake Erie. Local structures within this broad structurally high region include the Howell Anticline, the Freedom Anticline, and the Lucas Monocline. The northwest-trending Howell Anticline is located north and northwest of the project area. The northwest-trending Freedom Anticline is located west of the project area, and the north-to-northwest-trending Lucas Monocline lies southeast of the project area and along the projected trend of the Bowling Green Fault. The direction and amount of regional dip of the strata in south-eastern Michigan are variable. In the vicinity of the site, the strata dip northwest toward the Michigan Basin at 0.5 or less (Reference 4).

The Howell Anticline approaches to within about 25 miles north of the site and extends approximately 80 miles to the northwest. The northwest-southeast-trending fold is located on the southeast flank of the Michigan Basin and has a maximum structural relief, in the early Paleozoic rocks, of about 1000 ft (Reference 22 in Reference 5). The relief is less FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-5 REV 16 10/09 pronounced in the younger strata. It has been suggested that faulting is associated with the Howell Anticline (References 5, 6, and 7) as discussed in Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2. The Lucas Monocline is a north-to-northwest-trending series of folds in southeastern Michigan located approximately 30 miles southwest of the site. It has been inferred by Ells (Reference 5) that the Lucas Monocline may connect with or be associated with the Bowling Green Fault, which is mapped in northwest Ohio (References 6 and 8). Other researchers (Reference 9) have inferred that the Lucas Monocline is actually a fault structure. The folds bend northwestward in southern Michigan where they join the Freedom Anticline. The early Paleozoic rocks in this folded area have a maximum structural relief on the order of 500 ft. The Chatham Sag (References 5 and 10) is a broad, gentle northwest-trending syncline that has been mapped as far south as the north shore of Lake Erie. The axis of the syncline lies about 50 miles northeast of the site. The Chatham Sag crosses the Findlay-Algonquin Arch System and is virtually unrecognizable in the early Paleozoic strata. A system of small faults, the most prominent of which is the Electric Fault, is associated with this structure.

Several small earthquakes have occurred near the juncture of the Findlay, Cincinnati, and Kankakee Arches. These earthquakes cannot be associated with any known structures, but are believed to have occurred along a zone of structural weakness that separates the three arches. A portion of the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) tectonic map of the United States is shown in Figure 2.5-8. This map shows the detail of some of the structural features in the Michigan Basin area.

2.5.1.1.3.2. Faulting The distribution of major faults in the region is shown in Figure 2.5-7, and their characteristics are presented in Table 2.5-2. The Bowling Green, Electric, Tekonsha Trend, and Albion-Scipio Trend faults are the four major faults within 100 miles of the project area.

The Bowling Green Fault is located approximately 35 miles southwest of the site. It has been inferred by some workers (Reference 9) that faulting extends northward into southeast Michigan. Some (Reference 5) have inferred that major faulting is not present in this area in Michigan and have interpreted the structure to be a result of folding. Others (Reference 11) believe no major faulting to be affiliated with the structure at all, and interpret it as being a monocline. Since the very existence of the fault is in question, no clear-cut evidence is available that would either indicate age of last movement or definition of the fault. For purposes of conservatism, the Bowling Green structure is assumed to be a fault. The fault is not believed to extend into Michigan (Reference 12). The evidence available for faulting is described as follows (Reference 7):

A drop by faulting of more than 200 feet in the top of the Trenton Limestone is indicated between well locations in the vicinity of Findlay, Cygnet, and Bowling Green, Ohio. The fault which is down-thrown on the west extends northward and connects with the Lucas County (Ohio) - Monroe County (Michigan) monocline.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-6 REV 16 10/09 Thus, the only evidence of the age of last faulting is Middle Ordovician (based upon evidence in the Trenton Limestone). Evidence of faulting along the west flank of the Howell Anticline has been presented (References 7 and 13) and it has been suggested that total vertical displacement may be as much as 1000 ft (Reference 13). The type of faulting, amount of displacement, and orientation have not been absolutely determined. More recent work (Reference 5) has revealed that faults of major displacement are not believed to exist in connection with the immediate west flank of the Howell Anticline and it is shown that, although minor faulting may have occurred along the west flank or across the structure, it is not of the magnitude generally described by earlier investigators. Developments of the Howell Anticline associated with major faulting may have begun as early as Late Ordovician and continued throughout most of the Paleozoic. If the presence of Jurassic-aged rock in the Michigan

Basin is considered, developments may have taken place as late as Cretaceous time. The age of last faulting within the State of Michigan, however, appears to be Paleozoic (Reference 14). A system of faults located 45 miles northeast of the site is associated with the Chatham Sag. The Electric Fault in this fault system has a reported maximum vertical displacement of 300 ft (Reference l5). Maximum displacements of less than 100 ft have been reported for other faults in this system (Reference 15).

Faulting has been postulated along the Tekonsha oil field structure, and several small seismic events have been tentatively correlated to these. The structure trends northwest-southeast for an inferred length of 60 miles. Only limited, minor structural indications of this fault have been recorded.

The age of the faulting in the southeastern portion of the Michigan Basin is assumed to be Ordovician, although some evidence exists of minor movement in post-Ordovician time (Ells, personal communication). The Keweenawan-Lake Owen Fault System lies northwest of the Michigan Basin, approximately 430 miles northwest of the site. It has a northeast trend on the Keweenawan Peninsula in Lake Superior. Vertical displacements on this fault system of a few thousand

feet to more than 9000 ft are known (Reference l6). This fault system is not associated with the Michigan Basin.

The Rough Creek-Kentucky River Fault System in southern Illinois and central Kentucky is approximately 350 miles south of the site.2.5.1.1.3.3. Pop-up and Affiliated Structural Features Pop-up features in bedrock have been identified in various parts of western New York State, and in Canada. The existence of several of these features has been documented (Reference

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-7 REV 16 10/09 Actual pop-ups have not been noted in southeastern Michigan or adjacent portions of Ohio, Indiana, or Canada, but surficial folding of Devonian shales has been observed in northwestern Ohio. Although pop-ups have not been specifically documented in the site region, pop-ups or "heave" are fairly common occurrences in quarries in a wide range of localities due to a reduction of lithostatic load. The small mound-like features noted during the mapping of excavation at the site are believed to be of organic origin. During the excavation process, no rockbursts, pop-ups, or heaves were seen. This can be attributed to a lack of compressive stresses as described in Reference 17 and insufficient depth of excavation to reduce lithostatic loading sufficiently to cause such features to occur.

2.5.1.1.4.

Ground Water In the region surrounding the site, ground water aquifers are present in two types of material: glacial outwash deposits and Paleozoic bedrock. An expanded discussion of regional ground water conditions is found in Subsection 2.4.13.

2.5.1.1.5.

Geologic History 2.5.1.1.5.1. General The study of geologic history provides an insight as to the tectonic stability of a region and a better understanding of stratigraphic relationships between various soil and rock units. It also furnishes correlative data that assist in the interpretation of events in adjacent regions.

An accurate interpretation of geologic history is the result of years of cumulative effort.

It is based on numerous examinations of soil and rock units in exposures, and from borings with regard to lithology and fossil content. The generalized stratigraphic succession and the distribution of the bedrock units in Michigan are presented in Figure 2.5-4. They are composite in nature. The entire series of stratigraphic units is not likely to be encountered at any given locality; however, it is a graphic illustration of the changing geologic history. Individual time units are discussed in the following paragraphs, and the tectonic and structural features mentioned are shown in Figures 2.5-6 and 2.5-7.

2.5.1.1.5.2. Precambrian The basement rocks of Michigan are Precambrian in age. They include granite, felsic and mafic gneiss, volcanics, metavolcanics, metasediments, mafic volcanics, and mafic intrusives (Reference 18). Radiometric dates range from approximately 600 to 3500 million years (Reference 19). These rocks represent a complex series of geologic events that include sedimentation, uplift and erosion, subsidence and deposition, mountain building, volcanism, and igneous intrusions followed by erosion, which have produced an irregular surface upon which the overlying Paleozoic sediments have been unconformably deposited. The regional Bouguer gravity map (Figure 2.5-9) and the regional magnetic map (Figure 2.5-10) of the Southern Peninsula of Michigan substantiate the conclusion that the basement FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-8 REV 16 10/09 rocks are both structurally and lithologically complex. The Mid-Michigan Anomaly, the dominant feature of the gravity map and to a lesser degree of the magnetic map, has been interpreted by Hinze (Reference 20) as originating from the mafic rocks of Keweenawan age similar to those that outcrop in the Lake Superior region. This feature consists of a positive gravity anomaly and a correlative magnetic high. Pirtle (Reference 21) states, "...it is believed that the principal folds now existing in the later sediments are controlled by trends of folding or lines of structural weakness which existed in the basement rocks." This opinion is still the prevalent one shared by most workers (Reference 20). The most obvious example of this correlation is the alignment of the Washtenaw Anticlinorium with the Mid-Michigan Anomaly in Washtenaw and Livingston Counties.

2.5.1.1.5.3. Cambrian At the beginning of the Cambrian Period, a mountainous belt extended across most of the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. Erosion of topographic highs dominated while clastic sediments accumulated in the surrounding lowlands. Paleozoic deposition in southern Michigan began when Late Cambrian seas spread across the interior of the continent, depositing clean sandstones, dolomites, and limestones characteristic of shallow, clear seas with bordering land masses of low relief.

The accumulation of sediments in the Michigan Basin originated with Late Cambrian subsidence. During this period of geologic history, the Michigan and Illinois Basins were not separated. This early, undifferentiated basin is known as the Eastern Interior Basin.2.5.1.1.5.4. Ordovician The Ordovician was the period during which Paleozoic seas became fully established in Michigan. The variable nature of the rocks in southern Michigan, as revealed by deep-boring data, suggests fluctuating marine conditions. Deposition of Lower Ordovician dolomite and sandstone indicates that seas were present in the Lower Peninsula while absent in the Upper Peninsula. Two regressions of the sea during the Ordovician are indicated by unconformities within the sedimentary sequence of southern Michigan, one at the top of the Prairie du Chien Group during the Early Ordovician and the other at the top of the Eden Group during the Late Ordovician.

2.5.1.1.5.5. Silurian Seas persisted in Michigan from Ordovician into Silurian time. Apparently, the entire state was occupied by offshore waters so that the Silurian marine deposits in Michigan are mainly chemical precipitates formed in clear seas. Locally, shallow banks supported reefs. It is believed that coral reef formations along the margins of the Michigan Basin effectively isolated the basin area from the main marine body and formed an evaporation basin. Great accumulations of Silurian salt, anhydrite, and gypsum were formed. The Silurian was a time of accelerated downwarping of the Michigan Basin. Slight expressions of the Findlay and Kankakee Arches are seen in the Upper Silurian sediments in the southeast and southwest corners of Michigan, respectively.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-9 REV 16 10/09 Near the close of the Silurian Period, the seas withdrew from the Michigan Basin.2.5.1.1.5.6. Devonian During Early Devonian time, the southeastern portion of the Michigan Basin was subjected to erosion and/or nondeposition. To the north and northwest, however, marine sedimentation continued. By Middle Devonian time, the Michigan Basin was fully occupied by the sea, which deposited limestones and, finally, shales in a relatively shallow-water environment.

2.5.1.1.5.7.Mississippian Marine waters that existed since Middle Devonian time continued into Early Mississippian

time. Alternating shales, siltstones, and sandstones are representative of sediments of Mississippian age.

Tilting of the Michigan Basin area is believed to have occurred in Early Mississippian time, resulting in a marked expression of the Findlay Arch and possibly the northeast-southwest trending folds in the central portion of the Michigan Basin. Toward the close of Early Mississippian time, a major regression of the sea maintained much of southern Michigan as a near-shore and beach environment. Middle Mississippian rocks are absent, which indicates that either there was no deposition due to a complete withdrawal of the sea from Michigan, or there was deposition and subsequent erosion. Upper Mississippian deposits indicate a transgression of the sea. Some evaporite deposits similar to those found in Silurian sediments are present. Near the close of the period, the seas freshened and limestone was deposited.

In latest Mississippian time, the Michigan Basin was subjected to uplifting and folding that involved the Precambrian basement features. This activity produced many of the structures in Paleozoic rocks of the Michigan Basin in which gas and oil later accumulated (References 19 and 22).2.5.1.1.5.8. Pennsylvanian The pattern of alternating sedimentation established during the Mississippian Period continued into Pennsylvanian time and reached its peak with a characteristic cyclical sedimentation of alternating marine, brackish

-water, and terrestrial deposits. Organic accumulation in the brackish-water swamps formed widespread coal beds. From Pennsylvanian time to the Pleistocene Epoch, the area remained above sea level.

Erosion prevailed in post-Pennsylvanian time with the exception of some terrestrial sandstone and shale deposition during the Jurassic Period. The entire Mesozoic Era was relatively inactive, although broad uplift and some erosion did occur. Minor fault activity is believed to have taken place along the Keweenawan Fault System into Cretaceous time.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-10 REV 16 10/09 Geologic evidence suggests that southern Michigan existed as a low stable land mass for over 200,000,000 years, while the Appalachian Mountains, Rocky Mountains, and other structural features in North America were being formed or were undergoing additional movements.

2.5.1.1.5.9. Jurassic The geologic record is almost completely missing from the end of Pennsylvanian time until the Pleistocene. The only rocks representing this long span of time are some sedimentary strata that for many years were referred to simply as "red beds." Their age was long uncertain but was thought to be Pennsylvanian. Early maps showed them as such. In recent years, fossilized microscopic plant spores have been found in well samples from the red beds.

They have been identified as being Late Jurassic in age (Reference 19). Surface exposures of the rocks have not been found, and their presence beneath the glacial drift has been demonstrated only by well samples. The Jurassic red beds are normally about 100 ft thick, but in places attain thicknesses of 300 to 400 ft (References 19 and 22). The rock consists mainly of sandstone, shale, and clay, with minor beds of limestone and gypsum.

2.5.1.1.5.10.

Pleistocene Glaciation began during Pleistocene time some 1,000,000 years ago. In general, four distinct glacial advances are recognized throughout North America during this division of geologic history. From oldest to youngest, these are known as the Nebraskan, Kansan, Illinoian, and Wisconsinan glacial stages. There is positive evidence in Michigan for only the Wisconsinan glacial advance. However, Illinoian and Kansan glacial deposits are found to the south of Michigan in Ohio and Indiana. Therefore, it is reasonable to assume that Michigan was overridden by at least these two earlier advances as well (Reference 19). The Wisconsinan glacial deposits blanket large portions of Michigan (Figure 2.5-2). These deposits represent a complex series of ice lobes that advanced and retreated a number of times. The ice sheets modified the Great Lakes basin and are responsible for almost all of the present-day surface topography.

2.5.1.2. Site Geology 2.5.1.2.1.

Physiography The site area (Figure 2.4

-3) is located on a featureless lacustrine plain (Figure 2.4

-1) along the western shore of Lake Erie.

The plain was formed during the high-water stages of Lake Erie. It is essentially flat lying and generally poorly drained, but it has been slightly dissected along Swan Creek, which flows into Lake Erie at the northern edge of the Fermi site. The plain slopes gently to the east. The average elevation of the lacustrine plain is about 660 ft above mean sea level, or approximately 90 ft above mean lake level. The relief within the site boundaries is approximately 9 ft.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-11 REV 16 10/09 2.5.1.2.2.

Stratigraphy 2.5.1.2.2.1. Soil Units Local sand deposits are encountered in an old channel of Swan Creek at the north end of the site, and in the barrier beach, which forms the shoreline of Lake Erie at the site. Other sand deposits are encountered offshore. The maximum thickness of sand encountered in the lake is 25 ft. More recent surficial deposits of silt, peat, and clay are encountered in the lower, swampy areas at the site. A compact, relatively impermeable till mantles the rock throughout the site area. Occasional boulders, up to 3 ft in diameter, are encountered near the bedrock surface. The till is approximately l4 ft thick and is overlain by about 7 ft of impermeable stratified lacustrine clay.

Approximately 5 ft of lacustrine peaty silts and clay had been removed from the site area at the time of the Fermi 2 foundation investigation. The surface of glacial till was exposed at an average elevation of 566 ft, which is approximately 6 ft below the water surface of adjacent Lake Erie. The till consists of nearly impermeable silty to sandy clays with varying amounts of gravel and cobbles. The thickness of the till deposit on top of bedrock within the immediate Fermi 2 plant area, as determined from the borings, ranges from a minimum of 8 ft to a maximum of 15.5 ft, and has an average thickness of approximately 14 ft. Wider variations may be present since both the upper and lower surfaces of the till are erosional surfaces.2.5.1.2.2.2. Rock Units The bedrock strata in the site area range in age from Silurian to Precambrian as shown in Figure 2.5-11. The bedrock surface is shown in Figure 2.5-12. A total of 40 test borings were drilled at the site for Fermi 2 detailed foundation studies. The locations of these borings are shown in Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14. The deepest boring at the site extended 109 ft into the Unit C bed of the Salina Group. Relationships between the units encountered during the drilling program are shown in the subsurface sections, Figures 2.5-15 through 2.5-20. The description of the stratigraphic units below Unit C of the Salina Group is based on published reports. The estimated thicknesses of these deeper units are based on logs of boreholes drilled in the general area and on interpretation of structural geologic maps of the general area.

Bass Islands Group - Dolomite of the Bass Islands Group forms the uppermost bedrock stratum at the site and overlies the Salina Group. In the borings at Fermi 2, the Bass Islands dolomite is a gray-brown, thinly bedded rock of dense, finely crystalline character. Black shale partings about 1/8 in. in thickness are interspersed throughout the dolomite at spacings of about 4 in. Both the dolomite bedding and the shale partings are essentially horizontal.

Occasional soft gray clay seams between 1/4 in. and 8 in. in thickness occur at random in the dolomite and are usually associated with fractured zones and vugs. Two marker beds in the Bass Islands Group were penetrated by the borings and have been correlated throughout the site. The upper marker bed is an oolitic dolomite ranging from 1.8 to 3.5 ft in thickness. The lower marker bed is a soft black shale. Recovered thickness of the shale among the several FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-12 REV 16 10/09 borings ranges from 0.2 to 1.2 ft; however, its in-place thickness is greater than the amounts recovered.

Fractures are present to a variable degree in the Bass Islands Group; joints are relatively tight and discontinuous, and usually display only very minor solution activity. The dominant trends of joints are N45-60W and N40-50E and are nearly vertical in dip (Reference 23). Where the rock is densely fractured, intervals have closely spaced joints that form fragmented zones. Fractures are oriented from 0 (horizontal) to 90 (vertical), and the thickness and depths of these zones are variable throughout the site. The fragmented zones range in thickness from a few inches to as much as 4.5 ft, and average about 1 ft. Small vugs are present throughout the Bass Islands Group. They range from barely visible to 2 in. in maximum dimension. The amount of open space created by vugs ranges from about 0 to 30 percent of the total rock mass, with an average of 5 percent to 10 percent. Numerous vugs are also present which are lined with crystals of the mineral celestite. Fractures connect some of the vuggy zones, which increases the permeability to the rock mass.

The thickness of the Bass Islands Group, where fully penetrated by the borings, increases from 13.5 ft at boring 20 where part has been removed by erosion, to 101 ft at boring 201 (Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14). Salina Group - The Salina Group at the site is subdivided into five beds referred to as:

a. Unit G, shales and argillaceous dolomite b. Unit E, argillaceous dolomite
c. Unit C, dolomite
d. Unit A-2, dolomite
e. Unit A-1, dolomite. Borings at the site encountered only the lower portion of the Bass Islands Group and extended as deep as Unit C of the Salina. Beds of the Salina Group in the site area consist of alternating layers of dark gray dolomite and shale. The maximum thickness of Salina Group strata penetrated during drilling was 224 ft in boring 79. None of the borings passed through the Salina Group into lower strata. Some brecciation was noted at the Bass Islands-Salina contact. No salt beds were encountered in the vicinity of the site. Figure 2.5-21 is an isopach map of the Salina salt beds in southeastern Michigan. Salt present in Wayne County thins to the south and is absent in Monroe County. The only salt underlying the site is an insignificant quantity in the form of very small salt crystals (1/16-in. in diameter) disseminated through several feet of a dense dolomite in the Unit G, E, and C formations. The shale intervals of the Salina Group, as observed in recovered core, range from soft to hard and from 0.01 ft to 2.2 ft in thickness. Gray clay seams in the sequence are soft and occur predominantly in fractured and vuggy zones, and are responsible for the lower percentages of core recovery. The vugs are sedimentary features caused by decay of fossil matter or other depositional and consolidation features and do not indicate karst conditions at the site. Little of this material was recovered during drilling, but the maximum clay thicknesses are believed not to exceed 1 ft.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-13 REV 16 10/09 Unit G - Unit G directly overlies Unit E and consists of gray, hard and soft shales, dolomitic shales, and argillaceous dolomites with occasional traces of anhydrite. Unit G was observed to be about 60 ft thick at the site.

Unit E - Unit E, which directly overlies Unit C, consists of gray to browni sh-gray, vuggy, shaly dolomite, dolomitic limestone, and limestone breccias. All vugs encountered in the borings were less than 2 in. in diameter. Due to the vugged zones, the unit is highly permeable and shows minor artesian ground water flow. Unit E is uniformly about 60 ft thick in the vicinity of the site.

Unit C - Unit C directly overlies the A-2 dolomite unit and consists of a buff to gray, hard, thin- to medium-bedded dolomite with thin seams of shaly dolomite and anhydrite. Generally, anhydrite layers were less than 6 in. in thickness and the thickest layer encountered was a 6-ft layer in boring 209 at approximate Elevation 295 ft. The base of Unit C was not penetrated in the borings drilled for this study. Unit C is estimated to be about 140

ft thick at the site.

Units A-2 and A The A-2 and A-1 units are buff-white to brownish-gray, very finely to finely crystalline dolomite. Stylolites, argillaceous thin layers, and partings are present.

Although the test borings at the site did not go as deep as the A units, the units are considered to be present below the site.

Niagaran Group - The Niagaran Group consists of buff, gray, and light brown, fossiliferous, finely to coarsely crystalline dolomite. This group is stratigraphically equivalent to the Clinton and Guelph-Lockport Groups of southeastern Ontario, and has an estimated thickness of 425 ft near the site (Reference 24).

Cataract Group - This group is a buff to gray, fossiliferous dolomite with thin layers and partings of green to gray shale. Traces of pyrite and glauconite are present. Estimated thickness near the site, based on Michigan well logs, is 100 ft. Richmond Group - The Richmond Group contains approximately 625 ft of shale and dolomite, based on Monroe County well logs. The shale is gray to green with some brick-red units throughout the section. Dolomite occurs as stringers within the shale and as gray to buff, fossiliferous beds containing red and gray shale seams. Trenton-Black River Group - The Trenton Group is generally undivided in subsurface from the underlying Black River Group. These rocks consist of gray-brown to buff, fossiliferous dolomite and dolomitic limestone with noticeable oil stains and gas shows. Estimated thickness near the site is 825 to 850 ft. Several thin layers of metabentonitic clay occur within a 1-ft zone at the bottom of the Trenton Group. These layers have been noticed in drillers' logs of Monroe County and are discussed by Hussey (Reference 25). The Trenton-Black River Group unconformably overlies the St. Croixan Series at the site due to the local absence of Lower Ordovician deposits (Reference 16). St. Croixan Series - The St. Croixan Series comprises dolomite, sandstone, and minor amounts of shale in approximately 475 ft of section. The dolomite is buff, white to gray, slightly glauconitic, finely crystalline, and occasionally shaly. The dolomite occurs in the upper section of the series and is underlain by buff, white to gray, fine- to coarse-grained sandstone. Gray shale layers occur throughout the sandstone as partings or more uncommonly as beds several feet in thickness.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-14 REV 16 10/09 Precambrian - The Precambrian basement is a metamorphic-igneous complex composed of granite and granitic gneiss (Reference l8). Estimated depth near the site to the Precambrian rock is about 3100 ft.

2.5.1.2.3.

Structural Geology The borings have not disclosed faulting at the site. Differential elevations in the bedrock strata were investigated and are interpreted as a shallow synclinal fold. The axis of the fold trends approximately N60W and passes through the Fermi 2 area, as shown in Figures 2.5-22 and 2.5-23. The strata dip toward the axis of the fold at about 4 and 1.5 to the north and south sides, respectively. The axis of the synclinal fold plunges to the northwest at about 1.5. Several marker beds were used to trace the folding and to determine the configuration and continuity of the rock structures. The primary marker bed used was the lower oolitic horizon in the Bass Islands dolomite. Other marker beds were a thin continuous shale seam within the Bass Islands Group, and the contact between the Bass Islands Group and the Salina Group. Small local folds of the shale, encountered at the site area, are quite common in southeastern Michigan and are not necessarily related to regional tectonic trends. Many have been detected through oil and gas exploration in Monroe and Wayne Counties.

2.5.1.2.3.1. Jointing The Bass Islands dolomite is highly jointed. The vertical joints range from open to closed.

Some are filled with gypsum, anhydrite, or selenite. The nature of this jointing has been observed in excavations for Fermi 2 and in a quarry located less than 1 mile west of Fermi 2.

This quarry has been allowed to fill with water, and excavations for Fermi 2 have been filled so that observation of these joints has been obliterated. Nevertheless, mapping of the joints has been accomplished in the excavation for the reactor/auxiliary buildings (Reference 24) and more recently in the excavation for the RHR complex. Mapping of the excavation for the reactor/auxiliary building indicated trends of N45-60W and N60-50E. The RHR complex excavation exhibits joint trends of N21-35W and N54-72E. Quantity and degree of openness of jointing tends to decrease with depth in all excavations encountered at the site.2.5.1.2.3.2. Folding The regional structure at the site indicates a northwest dip of less than 0.5. Local warpings superimposed on the regional dip are known to be present. Contour maps drawn using the base of an oolitic horizon marker bed within the Bass Islands Group indicate a shallow synclinal fold (Figures 2.5-22 and 2.5-23). The axis of the fold trends approximately N60 W and passes through the Fermi 2 area, as shown in Figures 2.5-22 and 2.5-23. The fold is asymmetrical and the strata on the northeast side dip southwest at about 4. The strata on the southwest side dip northeast at about 1.5. The axis of the syncline plunges northwest at about 1.5. A small anticlinal feature superimposed on this shallow synclinal fold is indicated on Figure 2.5-23 on the basis of boring data. During the course of mapping of the FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-15 REV 16 10/09 excavation, this feature was also observed. It was noted that, in general, foundation surface bedding planes are higher in the east-central region of the excavation and gently dip to the south, west, and north, implying a slight doming of the bedding planes in this region of the excavation.

2.5.1.2.3.3. Faulting There are no reported faults within 25 miles of the site. All reported regional faults are tabulated in Table 2.5-2 and are shown in Figure 2.5-7.

2.5.1.2.4.

Ground Water The surficial deposits at the site consist of low

-permeability glacial till, lacustrine clay, and peat. Some fine sand is present along the shoreline of Lake Erie. The surficial deposits locally act as a confining layer above the Paleozoic bedrock aquifer, and a slight artesian pressure exists at the site. More detailed information on ground water conditions at the site is found in Subsections 2.4.13 and 2.5.4.6. The rate of flow of artesian ground water was noted at varying depths during the 1968 and 1969 boring operations for Fermi 2 Category I structures and is shown in Table 2.5-3.

Similarly, any noticeable odor of hydrogen sulfide gas was noted. These observations are presented on the boring logs. Chemical analyses of ground water were made and the results are given in Subsection 2.5.4.6.

2.5.1.2.5.

Geologic History The geologic history of the region is discussed in Subsection 2.5.1 and includes the history as represented by the geologic units from the Precambrian to the Pleistocene. At the site, the borings penetrated only the Middle and Early Silurian rocks (Niagaran and Cayugan Series) indicated on the site stratigraphic column, Figure 2.5-11. The presence of Precambrian, Cambrian, and Ordovician rocks underlying the Silurian sequence shown on the legend of the regional geologic map, Figure 2.5-4, has been proven by borings in areas adjacent to the site, and these rocks are probably present at the site. Those portions of the regional geologic history that are applicable to the site are the Precambrian, Cambrian, Ordovician, Silurian, and Pleistocene.

2.5.1.2.6.

Hydrocarbon Production and Subsurface Gas Storage Potential Neither hydrocarbon production nor subsurface gas storage is believed to have great potential within the site vicinity.2.5.1.2.6.1. Hydrocarbon Production Potential As mentioned in Subsection 2.5.1.2.2.2, oil stains and gas shows have been noted in the Trenton-Black River Group of Middle Ordovician age. The Trenton-Black River Group does hold distinct possibilities for future hydrocarbon production. Virtually all Ordovician hydrocarbons have come from the eight-county area which includes Monroe and surrounding counties. Of this production, the AlbionScipio Trend, which crosses Calhoun, Hillsdale, and Jackson Counties, accounts for nearly 74 FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-16 REV 16 10/09 percent of the productive drilled acreage and most of the cumulative Ordovician hydrocarbons (Reference 26).

The eight-county area has been analyzed for hydrocarbon yield per square mile and has been thought to have been adequately drilled to assess its future potential. Ells (Reference 26) says:

For the purpose of estimating the amount of undiscovered hydrocarbons in the Middle Ordovician Trenton-Black River rocks, it is assumed that the eight-county area has been completely explored, that no additional fields will be found and that the total production from this area amounted to 92,694,457 bbl. From this standpoint, although the majority of Ordovician oil is presently obtained from this eight-county area and primarily from the Albion-Scipio Trend, significant future hydrocarbon development is unlikely and the remainder of the Michigan Basin holds more promise for increased future development.

2.5.1.2.6.2. Subsurface Gas Storage Potential Subsurface storage of gas has been successfully carried out in the State of Michigan and has been largely restricted to converted gas fields.

The nearest such field that has been used for subsurface storage of gas is the Northville Field in Wayne County. Other fields affiliated with subsurface gas storage are found in St. Clair and Macomb Counties at some distance from the site.

Monroe, Lenawee, and Washtenaw Counties and most of Wayne County are not considered prime candidates for gas storage. Increased gas storage is far more likely in regions of converted gas fields (Reference 27). This would preclude any great potential for subsurface storage of gas in isolated anticlinal structures as may occur in the site region.

2.5.1.2.7.

Engineering Geology Geologic conditions at the site are considered satisfactory for the support of the foundations of the Fermi 2 facilities. The foundations for all Category I structures are established into the Bass Islands dolomite beneath the glacial till and lacustrine deposits.

Fracturing is present to a variable degree in the Bass Islands Group. It ranges from sparse to dense. In the former case, the fractures occur as singular, isolated structures of different lengths and orientations. Other intervals are characterized by closely spaced fractures that form fragmented zones. The fragmented zones range in thickness from a few inches to as much as 4.5 ft. They average about 1 ft in thickness. The thicknesses and depths of these zones are variable. Occasionally they occur at similar elevations, but the extent of lateral continuity is difficult to ascertain.

Vuggy zones are present throughout the Bass Islands Group and range from barely visible size to 2 in. in maximum dimension. The amount of open space created by vugs ranges as high as 30 percent of the total rock mass with an average of 5 percent to 10 percent. Fractures connect some of the vuggy zones, the connections thereby increasing the permeability of the rock mass. Comprehensive subsurface explorations, careful inspection of all excavations, and monitoring of foundation grouting (Subsection 2.5.4) ensure that no cavities of FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-17 REV 16 10/09 detrimental size underlie the plant structures. Several sinkholes are known in Whiteford, Bedford, and Ida Townships of Monroe County (about 15 to 20 miles from the site), but none are reported or have been encountered in the site area (Reference 4). Nearly all occur in rocks of the Detroit River Group, which lie stratigraphically above the Bass Islands Group and are not present at the site.

A study of older published reports of drillers' logs and of four modern reports, including detailed study of well logs and cuttings conducted by Eschman, indicates that no salt deposits underlie the Fermi site (Reference l).

Figure 2.5-21 indicates the thickness of salt deposits in the Salina Group in southeastern Michigan. The contours shown represent points of equal thickness. The 0 isopach line or contour, therefore, represents the outer margin of the salt beds. The Fermi site is outside the salt area. The nearest occurrence of salt is shown to be about 10 to 15 miles north of the site. There is no solution mining within 17 miles of the site and the local geology indicates that there is no likelihood of future solution-mining activity in the site area, because minable salt does not occur within 15 miles. The closest reported sa lt-mining operation was in Wayne County about 17 miles north-northeast of the Fermi site (Reference 28). This is the same general area of current active mining operations that was studied in detail in the D&M report of the River Rouge Generating Plant site (Reference 29).

Accidental gas blowouts, associated with oil and gas exploration activity, have occurred to the north in the region (Reference 30). In blowouts, gas has been known to travel several miles along permeable horizons from the source well and cause damage in the outcrop area of the permeable stratum. However, there is no anticipated danger of gas blowouts at the site since the highest relatively permeable stratum in the area is the Salina E formation, which outcrops beyond the shoreline in Lake Erie. The results of ground water chemical analyses show that ground water at the site contains concentrations of sulfates that are potentially deleterious to portland cement, concrete, or grout. The potential for sulfates affecting cement, concrete, or grout stems from their chemical composition.

When certain alumina-bearing compounds are present in the cement of a hardened concrete, its exposure to water containing sulfate ions results in the formation of ettringite, accompanied by a volumetric expansion within the fabric of the hardened paste, which can result in disruption of the gel structure. Hence, for concretes that will be exposed to sulfate containing soils or waters, low tricalcium aluminate (3 CaO A1 2 O 3) cements are often specified (Reference 31). For this reason, Type V, modified Type II, and Canadian Standards Association (CSA) A5-1971 cement was used for grouting and for all subsurface concrete construction that would come into contact with the ground water. Since there is no known tricalcium aluminate present within the Category I crushed-rock backfill and it is not bonded like a concrete or cement grout, there would be no similar deleterious effect upon the crushed-rock backfill. Consolidation characteristics are described in Subsection 2.5.4.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-18 REV 16 10/09 2.5.1.2.8.

Test Borings Geologic borings were drilled at the Fermi 2 site in 1968, 1969, and 1972 to determine the details of the lithology, structure, and physical properties of the subsurface strata. Borings were drilled in l970 to determine static and dynamic soil and rock properties. The borings range in depth from 12.1 to 324.7 ft below the ground surface and were drilled at the locations indicated in Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14. Detailed descriptions of the soil and rock encountered in the borings are presented in Figures 2.5-24 to 2.5-56. The soils were classified. The Unified Soil Classification System is described in Figure 2.5-57.

Rock was cored utilizing NX and BX coring equipment and samples of the overburden soils were obtained. The field exploration program was conducted under the technical direction and supervision of D&M. Rock core from other borings drilled under the supervision of Soil and Foundations Associates was carefully examined by D&M. Five of the borings were utilized for pressure tests to obtain water leakage data as an aid in establishing criteria for dewatering and foundation grouting. The results of pressure testing are shown to the right of boring logs 201, 203, 209, 210, and RHR-3 in Figures 2.5-33, 2.5-35, 2.5-42, 2.5-43, and 2.5-50.

2.5.1.2.9.

Geophysical Explorations Geophysical investigations performed at the site in 1968 consisted of a seismic refraction survey and a borehole geophysical survey. The velocity of compressional wave propagation and other dynamic properties of the natural subsurface materials were determined by these studies, and were used in evaluating the response of the materials to earthquake loading. The results of the field geophysical studies are presented in Figures 2.5-58 through 2.5-61. Micromotions were measured to indicate the pattern of vibration at the site based on ambient background vibration analyses. These measurements, given in Table 2.5-4, are of assistance in estimating any predominant natural period of vibration at the site. Poisson's ratio and other dynamic moduli for the various materials (crushed-rock fill, glacial till, Bass Islands Group) in the stratigraphic section at the site were estimated based on computed and/or empirical data for similar materials. Shear wave velocities for the upper bedrock at the site were computed using the measured compressional wave velocities from the refraction survey and estimated Poisson's ratio. The computed shear wave velocities were then confirmed by the data developed in the borehole geophysical survey. In general, relatively good agreement was obtained from these two methods of evaluating shear wave velocity. Compressional wave velocities for the deeper rock strata have been measured in the region.

These data were used to compute shear wave velocities for the deeper rock strata, based on estimates of Poisson's ratio measured in similar materials.

Measured and computed geophysical data for the stratigraphic section at the site are presented in Figure 2.5-58.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-19 REV 16 10/09 2.5.1.2.9.1. Geophysical Borehole Logging Borehole geophysical measurements were made in three deep borings by the Birdwell Division of Seismograph Service Corporation. Four types of logs were run, providing the following categories of reduced data:

a. Compressional wave velocity (in situ) (Figure 2.5-58) at each 1

-ft interval

b. Shear wave velocity (in situ) (Figure 2.5-58) at each 1-ft interval. (In these three borings the shear velocity was not measured directly, but was calculated from an empirical relationship between compressional velocity and bulk density) c. Poisson's ratio (Figure 2.5-58) computed from compressional wave velocity and shear wave velocity
d. Bulk density, derived from density log (Figure 2.5-58). Representative logs are shown graphically in Figures 2.5-59 and 2.5-60.

2.5.1.2.9.2. Seismic Refraction Survey Two seismic refraction surveys, shown in Figure 2.5-61, were conducted to evaluate the bedrock characteristics at the site during the 1968 Fermi 2 investigation. The seismic lines were located along the barrier beach at the east edge of the site, as shown in Figure 2.5-22. One line was 250 ft long and the other was 500 ft long with some overlap in coverage. The results of the seismic refraction surveys were used to obtain dynamic properties of the foundation materials. Permanent records of the compressional waves generated from this survey were obtained using an Electro- Technical Labs ER75012 Seismic Timer, a 12-trace refraction seismograph. Geophone spacing was 25 and 50 ft, respectively, for the two lines.

The compressional velocities measured during these studies are presented in Figures 2.5-58 and 2.5-61. Access to additional geophysical refraction work in southeastern Michigan was provided by others. The compressional wave velocities measured in other regional surveys were slightly higher than the results obtained during this study. The other profiles were in slightly different material, higher in the geologic column. During the refraction surveys, the vibration levels within the existing Fermi 1 plant, and wave data generated in the foundation materials by the explosive charges, were monitored by a blast monitoring program.2.5.1.2.9.3. Ambient Vibration Measurements Ambient vibration measurements were made at two locations during the 1968 Fermi 2 investigation using D&M Micromotion Equipment (Hosaka Recording System). This equipment, which measures ambient ground displacements, has a magnification of up to 150,000. The equipment is capable of recording ground displacements ranging in frequency from 1 cycle per second to 30 cycles per second. The ambient vibration records can be used to indicate predominant periods of ground motion at the site, under the test strain levels.

Ambient station measurement No. 1 was obtained on 2 ft of soil covering a rock outcrop in an old quarry located in the northwest portion of the site. The second measurement was on FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-20 REV 16 10/09 approximately 20 ft of soil overlying rock. At the first location, the intensity of ground motion was very low with only a slight suggestion of predominant periods, indicative of hard rock. At the second observation point, the intensity of ground motion was so low that it was obscured by machinery noise. The depth of bedrock at each location and the predominant ground periods observed are indicated in Table 2.5-4.

2.5.1.2.10.

Laboratory Tests During the 1968 investigations of Fermi 2, representative rock cores that were extracted from certain borings were subjected to a laboratory testing program to evaluate the physical properties of the rock encountered at the site (References 1 and 2). The depths of the rock cores that were tested and tabulated in Table 2.5-5 and in Appendix 2D represent depths from the original ground surface. In some cases the rock samples tested were from above the foundation level. Testing of rock samples from this zone was carried out in order to arrive at conservative foundation design parameters since the rock above foundation level is more weathered and less competent than the rock below. Laboratory tests included the following:

a. Density tests
b. Unconfined compression tests
c. Shockscope tests d. Resonant column tests.

The density and unconfined compression tests were performed in accordance with ASTM standards. The shockscope and resonant column tests were performed according to generally accepted methods. There are no ASTM standards for these tests. Chemical analyses of ground water samples were performed during the 1969 investigation. Additional laboratory testing was performed in 1972 on soil samples and rock core obtained from borings at the Fermi 2 RHR complex (Reference 3).

2.5.1.2.10.1.

Static Tests Density Tests - Density tests were performed on representative rock cores that were selected from 1968 and 1969 borings made during the investigation of Fermi 2. The results of these tests are given in Table 2.5-5. Unconfined Compression Tests - During the 1968 and 1969 Fermi 2 boring program, several representative unconfined compression tests were performed on selected rock samples to evaluate the strength and elasticity characteristics of the bedrock. The tests on the rock cores were performed by the Robert W. Hunt Company in accordance with ASTM standards. The results of the rock compression tests and associated density determinations are presented in Table 2.5-5. Later, during the 1972 foundation investigation for the RHR complex, additional unconfined compression tests were performed by the Robert W. Hunt Company. The results of these tests are given in Table 2.5-6.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-21 REV 16 10/09 2.5.1.2.10.2.

Dynamic Tests Shockscope Tests - Several samples of the rock materials underlying the site were tested in the shockscope during the 1968 and 1969 studies. The shockscope is an instrument developed by D&M to measure the velocity of propagation of compressional waves in the material tested. The velocity of compressional wave propagation observed in the laboratory is used for correlation purposes with the field velocity measurements obtained in the geophysical refraction and borehole surveys. In the shockscope test, samples are subjected to a physical shock under a range of confining pressures, and the time necessary for the shock wave to travel the length of the samples is measured using an oscilloscope. The velocity of compressional wave propagation is then computed. Since this velocity is proportional to the dynamic modulus of elasticity of the sample, the data also are used in evaluating dynamic elastic properties. The results of the tests are presented in Table 2.5-7. Resonant Column Tests - Resonant column tests were performed on two representative samples of rock from the 1968 boring program to determine the shear modulus of rigidity of these materials. The samples are subjected to steady-state, sinusoidal, torsional forces applied to the top of the sample. The frequency of the force application is varied until the resonant frequency (the frequency associated with the maximum steady

-state amplitude) is attained. The shear modulus is computed from the resonant frequency of the sample. The results of the resonant column tests are presented in Table 2.5-8.

2.5.1.2.11.

Static and Dynamic Properties of Foundation Materials Static and dynamic soil and rock properties of foundation materials for Fermi 2 were determined for the reactor/auxiliary building and adjacent turbine and office service buildings and are presented in Table 2.5-9 (Reference 32). The properties were modified for the Fermi 2 RHR complex in order to be representative of the local soil and rock conditions.

The properties used for design criteria for the RHR complex are presented in Table 2.5-10 (Reference 3).

2.5.2. Vibratory

Ground Motion Basic Fermi 2 site vibratory ground-motion evaluations were conducted by D&M in 1968. A reaffirmation of the acceptability of this early work was provided by Weston Geophysical in 1982. The following paragraphs of this section present the data summarized from the original D&M investigation. However, any recent data of significance are identified and appropriately noted.

2.5.2.1. Geologic Conditions of the Site A complete discussion of the regional stratigraphy, structure, and geologic history is found in Subsection 2.5.1. This site is located within the Central Stable Region of North America, an area in which the geologic structure is relatively simple. The region is characterized by a system of broad, circular to oblong sedimentary basins that include the Michigan, Appalachian, and Illinois Basins. Stable regions, including the Cincinnati Arch Complex FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-22 REV 16 10/09 (including the Findlay, Algonquin, and Kankakee Arches), separate the basins. Numerous secondary features are superimposed on these broad structures. The site lies along the southeast edge of the Michigan Basin and northwest of the axis of the Findlay Arch. Precambrian crystalline basement rock lies about 3100 ft below the ground surface in the vicinity of the site. The crystalline basement complex is mantled by sedimentary rocks of Paleozoic age (Subsection 2.5.1.1.2.2). The bedrock surface at the site ranges in depth from approximately 15 to 30 ft below the existing ground surface. The overburden materials consist of sands, silts, and clays of Pleistocene age.

The uppermost bedrock unit at the site consists of the Bass Islands dolomite of Late Silurian age. Prior to glaciation, the Bass Islands Group was covered by deeply weathered and jointed rocks that experienced solution activity. Glacial advance and retreat scoured the younger rocks, and exposed the hard and relatively unweathered Bass Islands Group. The Bass Islands dolomite is on the order of 80 ft thick in the site area. The Salina Group underlies the Bass Islands and is about 525 ft thick near the site. This material consists of interbedded shales, limestones, and dolomites and is underlain by the Niagaran dolomite. Faults have not been identified within the basement rocks or overlying sedimentary strata at the site. The closest fault, the Bowling Green Fault, is postulated approximately 35 miles southwest of the site. The vertical displacement of this fault is thought to be several hundred feet. Other known faults in the area are more distant from the site. Most faults in the region are believed to have been dormant since late Paleozoic time, at least 200 million years ago (Subsection 2.5.1). Folding is known throughout southeastern Michigan. The most prominent secondary feature is the Howell Anticline, located in the southeastern portion of the Michigan Basin. Since the area has undergone multiple Pleistocene glaciation, it may be inferred that this region has been subjected to repeated slight bending in the last few hundred thousand years (Subsection 2.5.1).

2.5.2.2. Underlying Tectonic Structures A discussion of tectonic structures in the region surrounding the site is found in Subsection 2.5.1. The most significant structural features are listed below:

a. The Bowling Green Fault trends north-south in north-western Ohio. An inferred extension of this fault lies approximately 35 miles southwest of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2) b. The Howell Anticline, the most prominent fold in the region, approaches to within about 25 miles north of the site and extends approximately 80 miles to the northwest (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.1)
c. The Chatham Sag is a broad, gentle, northwest-trending syncline that has been mapped as far south as the north shore of Lake Erie. The axis of the syncline lies about 50 miles northeast of the site. A system of faults, including the Electric Fault, is associated with this structure (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.1) d. The Keweenawan Fault System, which is characterized by vertical displacements from a few thousand feet to more than 9000 ft, lies northwest of the Michigan Basin approximately 430 miles northwest of the site. It has a FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-23 REV 16 10/09 northeast trend on the Keweenawan Peninsula in Lake Superior (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2)
e. The Rough Creek-Kentucky River fault complex in southern Illinois and central Kentucky approaches to within about 350 miles south of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2).

2.5.2.3. Behavior During Prior Earthquakes Although a few distant earthquakes have been felt at the site, detailed onsite studies suggest that their intensities have not been sufficient to affect local surface or subsurface materials.

There is no physical evidence at the site to indicate that the area has experienced seismic activity at any time.

2.5.2.4. Engineering Properties of Materials Underlying the Site The engineering properties of unconsolidated surficial deposits and bedrock are presented in Subsections 2.5.1 and 2.5.4. Seismic wave velocities are presented in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9, 2.5.1.2.9.2, and 2.5.4.2; density values are presented in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9.1, 2.5.1.2.10, and 2.5.4.2; water contents are indicated by wet and dry density values given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.10; rock quality designation is presented below and in Subsection 2.5.4.2; and strength characteristics are given in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9.1 and 2.5.4.2.

2.5.2.5. Earthquake Histor y 2.5.2.5.1.

1968 Evaluation The site is located in one of the most seismically stable regions in the United States. No earthquake epicenter has been located closer than about 25 miles and only seven earthquakes have been reported within 50 miles of the site since the beginning of the 19th century. None of these shocks were greater than Intensity V on the Modified Mercalli Scale. Eleven earthquake epicenters of Intensity V to VIII have been reported within 50 to 100 miles of the site and another 24 of Intensity V to VII are located at distances between 100 and 200 miles. The closest Intensity VII shock was located at 90 miles and the closest Intensity VIII shock was located at 100 miles from the site.

A list of larger earthquakes located 200 or more miles from the site is presented in Table 2.5-

12. A list of earthquakes with epicenters located within a distance of about 200 miles from the site is presented in Table 2.5-13. This list presents all reported earthquakes within 50 miles of the site and significant shock (Intensity V and greater) within 200 miles of the site. The epicenters of these shocks are shown in Figure 2.5-62.

All intensity values in this subsection refer to the Modified Mercalli Scale. The intensity scale, which is described in Table 2.5

-11, is a means of indicating the relative size of an earthquake in terms of its perceptible effect.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-24 REV 16 10/09 Although at least six shocks have been felt at the site within the past two centuries, the maximum intensity at the site has not exceeded Intensity IV. None of the recorded earthquakes caused any damage at or near the site.

Since the beginning of the 19th century, twelve earthquakes of Intensity V or greater have been reported within 100 miles of the site, and only 37 earthquakes of Intensity V or greater have been reported within about 200 miles of the site. The 1776 and 1925 events have not been located precisely enough to plot on the figure. Few were of high enough intensity to cause structural damage to reasonably well

-built structures. None of these shocks were greater than Intensity VIII and only six can be considered more than minor disturbances.

These earthquakes occurred in 1875 (Intensity VII), 1930 (Intensity VI and VII), 1931 (Intensity VII), and two in 1937 (Intensity VII and VIII). The epicenter of the closest of these shocks was about 100 miles from the site. These six earthquakes, along with a number of smaller shocks, are concentrated in a 40

-mile-long northeast-southwest-trending zone extending south of Lima, Ohio. This zone of earthquake activity is located near the juncture of the Findlay, Cincinnati, and Kankakee Arches. The earthquakes closest to the site were four Intensity III and IV shocks near Toledo, Ohio (about 30 miles distance), an 1877 Intensity V shock west of Detroit, Michigan (about 30 miles from the site), and a 1961 Intensity V shock in northern Ohio (about 55 miles south of the site). The several Intensity III and IV shocks were reported in the Toledo newspapers.

These shocks were not felt at the site. The 1961 earthquake occurred near the Bowling Green Fault and/or the confluence of the Bowling Green Fault with the axis of the Findlay Arch. The 1877 Detroit shock has not been related to any specific geologic structure.

Although one or more of these small shocks may have been felt in the vicinity of the site, there were no reports of disturbance near the site, and no damaging effects were experienced.

It is estimated that intensities at the site due to these shocks were on the order of III or less.

The other five earthquakes within 50 miles of the site were Intensity V or smaller and probably were not felt at the site.

For purposes of this study, it is considered that the most significant earthquakes in the region were the 1937 Intensity VII to VIII earthquakes south of Lima, Ohio; the 1947 Intensity VI earthquake in south-central Michigan; the 1943 Intensity V earthquake in Lake Erie, about 100 miles east of the site; and the 1961 Intensity V earthquake in northern Ohio. This evaluation has been made considering such factors as epicentral intensity (with regard to both damage to structures and perceptible area), distance from the site, and geologic structure (with regard to the possible relationship of geologic structure near the earthquake epicenter to structure near the site). A discussion of each of these significant earthquakes follows. The earthquake of March 8, 1937, was the single most significant shock recorded within 200 miles of the site during the period of record. The shock occurred in an area that has experienced the most concentrated earthquake activity within the region. The area is located at the south end of the Findlay Arch near the confluence of the Cincinnati and Kankakee Arches. Residual stress fields from late Mississippian time may still be slightly active in this area and this locality is probably weaker than the surrounding region due to the confluence of structural features. Earthquakes in the region were generally located at the transition between major tectonic features, rather than within a structural block. The earthquake was felt in an area of about 150,000 square miles. The shock was reported in the FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-25 REV 16 10/09 Detroit newspapers and was felt near the site with about Intensity IV. The effect in Michigan was not great and no damage resulted.

The earthquake of August 9, 1947, occurred at approximately 8:47 p.m. northeast of Kalamazoo, Michigan. The effects near the epicenter were minor, consisting primarily of damage to a few brick chimneys. There also were reports of loose plaster shaken fro m

ceilings and loose bricks shaken from a few buildings. Based on the damage reports, the epicentral intensity of this earthquake was Intensity VI. The earthquake was felt within an area almost 200 miles in radius. The shock was felt in the vicinity of the site with Intensity III or less. This shock may be related to the Tekonsha oil field structure (see Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2). The earthquake of March 8, 1943, occurred at about 11:26 p.m. The maximum intensity of this shock was probably Intensity V and the duration of shaking was only several seconds. It was felt in a relatively large and irregular area extending from Toronto, Ontario, as far south as Zanesville, Ohio. The total perceptible area of this shock was on the order of 40,000 square miles.

Its location in the middle of Lake Erie reduced the area likely to sustain damage. The damage from this earthquake was trivial, with the highest intensity (VI) reported in Cleveland, Ohio. In Detroit, houses shook and windows rattled, but there were no reports of damage or of tall-building disturbance which is usual for more distant larger shocks. The shock was felt in the vicinity of the site and was reported to be about Intensity III. This shock may be related to an extension of the Chatham Sag into the northern part of Lake Erie.

The Intensity V earthquake of February 22, 1961, was the largest and most recent shock within 55 miles of the site. The epicenter of this shock has been located near the southern end of the Bowling Green Fault. Since only one seismograph recorded this shock, its specific location is somewhat tenuous. The shock was felt only in the local area and no damage resulted. The shock was not felt in the vicinity of the site. The limited perceptibility of this recent earthquake, indicating a rather low energy release, minimizes its significance in this study.

2.5.2.5.2.

1986 Reaffirmation Earthquake reassessment activities, in which new site

-specific earthquakes were defined and which provided documentation of the satisfactory conclusions reached from evaluation of the preceding earthquake history, were completed in 1982. Additional seismic activity has occurred since 1968 and is summarized through July of 1986 in the following paragraphs. Six more earthquakes have occurred within 200 miles of the site. Two of these were minor disturbances located near Colechester, Ontario, with epicentral intensities of III and IV. One occurred in 1968 near Attica, Michigan, with an epicentral intensity of V. The three others were located in Ohio near Celina, Perry, and St. Mary's and had intensities of VI, VI, and V respectively.

Six other earthquakes can be added to the list of earthquakes located 200 or more miles from the site. A 1975 earthquake was located near Wellston, Ohio (Intensity V), about 215 miles from the site. A major earthquake shook Sharpsburg, Kentucky (Intensity VII) in July 1980, FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-26 REV 16 10/09 about 300 miles from the site. A 1984 earthquake was located near Sudbury, Ontario (Intensity V), about 350 miles from the site. Two other 1984 earthquakes of Intensity V were located about 285 miles from the site near Clay City, Indiana. Finally, one 1985 earthquake near Edgebrook, Illinois, which is located about 250 miles from the site also had an intensity of V. Documentation for all these earthquakes has been provided in Tables 2.5-12 and 2.5-13 and their epicenters are shown in Figure 2.5-62. The most significant earthquakes since 1968 are the 1977 Ohio earthquake, the 1980 Kentucky earthquake, and the 1986 Perry earthquake. The June 1977 earthquake was located near Celina, Ohio, and had a Richter magnitude of 3.2. The earthquake was felt over about 550 sq km 2 of western Ohio from Celina, south to Chickasaw, west to Fort Recovery, and north to Rockford. Several instances of slight damage were reported in the area. The maximum intensity reported was a VI near Celina, Coldwater, Fort Recovery, and Rockford, Ohio. Damage ranged from sidewalk cracks to plaster cracks and hairline cracks in exterior walls. The estimated intensity at the site is a II. The shock of July 27, 1980, is the strongest earthquake to be centered in Kentucky and the strongest earthquake to be felt in this region since the southern Illinois earthquake of 1968. It was felt over an area of approximately 600,000 km 2 of the central United States and Canada. The epicenter was located near Sharpsburg, Kentucky, and the epicentral magnitude and intensity were 5.1 and VII respectively. The worst damage was at Maysville, Kentucky, approximately 50 km north of the epicenter, where 37 business structures and 269 residences suffered damage of some degree. Most of the significant damage to structures occurred in the older downtown section of the city. The damage was mostly to older brick structures probably built during the middle 1800s. Ground cracks were reported to have occurred about 12 km from the epicenter at Owingsville and Little Rock, Kentucky. Reports of the duration of ground vibration were about 15 sec of strong motions and up to several minutes for sensible vibrations. The intensity in Michigan varied from II to IV and was reported to be at II in Monroe, Michigan. The earthquake of January 1986, was located about 11 miles south of the Perry Nuclear Power Plant site and had a Richter magnitude of 4.96. The earthquake was rated as a Modified Mercalli Intensity of VI. Seventeen people were treated for minor injuries. Structural damage was confined to slightly damaged chimneys, cracks in concrete and under blockwalls, some cracked and fallen plaster, a few broken windows, and some well-water silting.

The January 31, 1986, Ohio earthquake was felt at the Fermi site as a Mercalli Intensity IV event. No unusual conditions were observed. The earthquake was not strong enough to be designated an event at Fermi. However, detailed earthquake instrumentation evaluations were completed and evaluation procedures and instrumentation interpretation techniques were verified.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-27 REV 16 10/09 2.5.2.6. Correlation of Epicenters With Geologic Structures The majority of the significant earthquakes in the region can be associated with well-defined geologic structural zones (Figure 2.5-62). The major geologic structures are described in Subsection 2.5.1.1.3 and are shown in Figures 2.5-6 and 2.5-7. As indicated by Tables 2.5-1 and 2.5-2, the folding and faulting in the central stable region are principally Paleozoic.

Recent investigations (References 33 and 34) have indicated that the present seismic activity is not related to surface faulting. Seismic activity occurs in regions bounded by structures of Paleozoic age. The random nature of epicentral locations is the result of stress release in randomly distributed Precambrian crustal blocks (Subsection 2.5.1.1.5.2 contains a more complete discussion). Any present seismic activity occurring near a fault or fold of Paleozoic age does not indicate that the structure is active.

To the north and west of the site, earthquakes are rare and appear to occur near anticlinal structures in northern Michigan. To the west of the site, earthquake activity has consisted of infrequent minor shocks that occur in the random epicentral region of southern Wisconsin and northern and central Illinois. To the south, at Anna, Ohio, recent investigations (Reference 35) conducted in the area indicate that earthquake activity is associated with complex Precambrian basement structures. Geologic conditions in this area are unique and the seismic events that occurred here cannot be considered random. However, as described in Subsection 2.5.2.9, in defining the maximum earthquake, an event similar to the Anna event was considered to be able to occur along the axis of the Findlay Arch at its closest approach to the site. These recent studies only indicate that the acceleration values used in design are more conservative than had previously been assumed. The zone of major earthquake activity closest to the site is in the vicinity of New Madrid, Missouri, more than 500 miles to the southwest. Earthquakes near New Madrid in 1811 and 1812 are considered among the largest ever to have occurred in the United States. It is reported that these shocks (possible Intensity XI) were felt in an area of 2 million square miles and changed the surficial topography in an area of about 30,000 to 50,000 square miles.

The structural damage resulting from these earthquakes was small due to the lack of construction and habitation in the region. It is estimated that intensities felt in the vicinity of the Fermi site due to these shocks were probably on the order of III to IV. Their influence would be predominant only at low frequencies and is enveloped by existing design criteria. These earthquakes occurred within the extensively faulted New Madrid (Reel Foot) seismographic region (Reference 36). The geologic structure in southern Illinois and western Kentucky is not related to the geologic structure in the vicinity of the site. The Rough Creek fault complex crosses major regional structures and probably forms a boundary separating the stable continental interior to the north from the seismogenic upper Mississippi Embayment. There is no geologic evidence to relate this fault system with structure or faulting within the continental interior. Thus, the seismically active region at the boundary and to the south should be considered dissimilar and distinct from the seismically quiet region to the north.

Another area of concentrated earthquake activity is in the vicinity of Cleveland, Ohio. Since the turn of the century, five Intensity V shocks have been reported in this area. No shock larger than Intensity V has been reported and none of these earthquakes were large enough to FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-28 REV 16 10/09 have been felt in Michigan. These shocks have not been related to a known tectonic feature. Several small shocks in southern Michigan, northern Indiana, and in Lake Erie, similarly, cannot be positively related to known faults. The 1947 southern Michigan shock apparently is coincident with the alignment of the Tekonsha oil field and may be associated with oil field structures. Structure and faulting is inferred for the oil field. The validity of an Intensity VI shock in 1883 in southern Michigan has been questioned. Although the magnitude of this earthquake is dubious, its location may indicate a relation to oil field structures.

The 1947 Intensity VI south-central Michigan shock and the 1943 Intensity V Lake Erie shock are the largest earthquakes in the region that cannot be positively related to specific tectonic features. Since the geologic structures in the region are believed to have been dormant since Paleozoic time, earthquake activity in the area may represent final crustal readjustment to Pleistocene glacial advance and retreat. Glacial rebound in the site area is nonexistent as far as is known.

2.5.2.7. Identification of Capable Faults No known capable faults occur within 200 miles of the site. Significant tectonic structures that occur within 200 miles of the site, however, are described in Subsection 2.5.2.2 and their locations are shown in Figure 2.5-7. A description of these structures is included in Subsection 2.5.1.1.3 and a summary of the major faults is given in Table 2.5-2. Information on the activity of the structures is included in Subsections 2.5.2.5 and 2.5.2.6.

2.5.2.8. Description of Capable Faults No known capable faults occur within 200 miles of the site. For a description of regional faulting, see Subsection 2.5.3.

2.5.2.9. Maximum Earthquake The effect at the site of a possible future earthquake similar to a large historical shock has been investigated. For this evaluation, the first shock considered was the March 8, 1937, Intensity VIII earthquake near Lima, Ohio. Should a shock similar to this earthquake occur in the vicinity of the confluence of the Findlay, Cincinnati, and Kankakee Arches, the attenuated ground acceleration at the site would be less than 5 percent of gravity. A review of the regional seismic history indicates that the shocks occurring near Lima, Ohio, have been localized within a very small area. The epicentral areas generally trend north

-south and are quite limited in extent. An additional shock (1961) was located near the confluence of the Bowling Green Fault and the axis of the Findlay Arch. Even if a shock as large as the 1937 Lima shock were to occur at this location, or at the closest approach of the Bowling Green Fault, or the axis of the Findlay Arch to the site, the maximum expected ground acceleration would be less than 10 percent of gravity. The 1811-1812 Intensity XII New Madrid, Missouri, series of earthquakes was also studied. Should a shock as large occur as close to the site as the closest approach of the Rough Creek- Kentucky River fault complex (about 350 miles), the attenuated ground acceleration at the site would be less than 5 percent of gravity.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-29 REV 16 10/09 It is also concluded that either of these occurrences would result in ground motion at the site significantly less than that selected for the safe-shutdown earthquake (SSE). Small earthquakes similar to the 1947 and 1943 shocks (Subsection 2.5.2.6) could occur in the vicinity of the site. On this basis, the effect of a shock similar to the 1947 south-central Michigan or the 1943 Lake Erie earthquake with an epicenter near the site has been considered. A conservative estimate of the maximum horizontal ground acceleration at the rock surface, due to such a shock, is less than 10 percent of gravity. Confirmatory site

-specific earthquake evaluations were completed in 1982 to reaffirm the acceptability of the established Fermi 2 facility seismic design bases. This site

-specific evaluation was completed assuming a Richter magnitude 4.9 to 5.9 quake with an epicenter less than 25 km from the site. This assumption is consistent with a quake at the Fermi 2 site similar to that which occurred in Anna, Ohio, in March 1937, and which would also account for a quake at the site such as the July 27, 1980, Kentucky experience in the Central Stable Region as well as the recent January 31, 1986, Perry, Ohio, event. Site-specific spectra were derived directly from representative real

-time histories for the appropriate magnitude and distance, and foundation conditions similar to the Fermi site. The 84 percentile of such spectra represented the comparative evaluation level for which the facility seismic design capability was reaffirmed.

2.5.2.10. Safe-Shutdown Earthquake Category I structures at the plant are founded on rock and are designed so that they can be safely shut down in the event ground accelerations at the site exceed those that are operationally tolerable. Consequently, an evaluation has been made of the degree of ground motion that is remotely possible, considering both seismic history and geologic structure. In developing the SSE evaluation, consideration was given to the fact that there is a history of minor to moderate earthquake activity in the region that cannot be related directly to known tectonic features. Category I structures, systems, and components are designed for a safe shutdown due to horizontal zero period ground accelerations at the rock surface at foundation level, of 15 percent of gravity (0.15g).

2.5.2.11. Site-Specific Earthquake In response to a request from the Geosciences Branch, a site- specific earthquake ground response spectrum (essentially per Regulatory Guide 1.60 pegged at 0.15g horizontal) was developed, exhibiting a significantly higher ground response than the SSE ground response.

Reevaluation of structures, systems, and components required for cold shutdown was presented to the NRC in the Supplementary Seismic Evaluation Report, Detroit Edison Report No. EF2-53332, Revision 1, dated July 15, 1981. Also see Subsection 3.7.1.2.1.

2.5.2.12. Operating-Basis Earthquake On the basis of the seismic history of the area, it does not appear likely that the site will be subjected to significant earthquake ground motion during the life of the plant. However, Category I structures are conservatively designed to respond, within elastic limits, and with no loss of function, to a horizontal ground acceleration on the rock surface at foundation FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-30 REV 16 10/09 level of 8 percent of gravity (0.08g). Subsequent review by Weston Geophysical demonstrated that the operating-basis earthquake (OBE) peak horizontal ground acceleration of 0.08g has a return period, as a minimum, of the order of 100 to 300 years.

2.5.3. Surface

Faulting No faults are known within 25 miles of the site. Detailed information concerning faulting on a regional and site basis is included in Subsections 2.5.1.1.3 and 2.5.2.7.

2.5.3.1. Geologic Conditions of the Site Details of the stratigraphy, structure, and geologic history of the site are found in Subsection 2.5.1.2.2.5.3.2. Evidence of Fault Offset No faults are known within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3).

2.5.3.3. Identification of Capable Faults No faults are known within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3).

2.5.3.4. Earthquakes Associated With Capable Faults No faults are known within 25 miles of the site, and no earthquakes have been reported closer than 25 miles from the site (Subsections 2.5.1.1.3 and 2.5.2.5).

2.5.3.5. Correlation of Epicenters With Capable Faults No faults or earthquake epicenters have been reported within 25 miles of the site (Subsections 2.5.1.1.3 and 2.5.2.5).

2.5.3.6. Description of Capable Faults No faults are known within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3).

2.5.3.7. Zone Requiring Detailed Faulting Investigation There is no known geologic basis for the possible existence of faulting in the site area.

Therefore a detailed faulting investigation is not warranted.2.5.3.8. Results of Faulting Investigation A review of all available literature, conferences with geological organizations, and onsite investigations revealed that no surface or subsurface faults exist within 25 miles of the site (Subsection 2.5.1.1.3.2).

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-31 REV 16 10/09 2.5.3.9. Design Basis for Surface Faulting Surface faulting at the site is not considered for design.

2.5.4. Stability

of Subsurface Materials 2.5.4.1. Geologic Features Pertinent geologic features of the site are discussed in detail in Subsection 2.5.1.2. Competent bedrock strata underlie the site and there are no major solution cavities or zones of solution weathering in the site area. However, due to the presence of zones of extensively fractured or highly vugged rock, pressure grouting was used to provide assurance that zones of this type are not horizontally continuous across the site. The foundation rock will satisfactorily support all static and dynamic loads imposed by all Category I and other heavy settlement sensitive structures.2.5.4.2. Properties of Underlying Materials A description of the site geology is given in Subsection 2.5.1.2. Test boring data are presented in Subsection 2.5.1.2.8. Grain- size classification is presented in Subsection 2.5.1.2.8; consolidation characteristics are given in Subsection 2.5.4.5.2; water content is indicated by wet and dry densities given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.10; unit weight values are given in Subsection 2.5.1.2.9; shear moduli are presented below; damping is considered below; and Poisson's ratio values are given below and in Subsection 2.5.1.2.9. Seismic wave velocities are given below and in Subsection 2.5.1.2.8. Density values are given below.

Rock quality designations are considered below and in Subsection 2.5.2.4. Strength characteristics are given below.

Based on an analysis of the results of laboratory testing together with a review of published data and a comparative evaluation of the soil and rock materials at the residual heat removal (RHR) complex (Reference 3) with those determined for the reactor site (Reference 2),

design parameters were developed and are presented in Tables 2.5-9 and 2.5-10. The parameters presented in Tables 2.5-9 and 2.5-10 are discussed below. A brief description of the method of determining the values is given, and the range of variation is discussed.

2.5.4.2.1.

Density The densities given for the rock fill material were determined from large

-scale density tests performed in a compacted test fill (Reference 2). In determining the submerged density, the rock fill material was assumed to have a specific gravity equivalent to that of dolomite. The range of variation given is considered appropriate for a controlled compacted fill of 1.5 in.

and smaller crusher-run rock. The densities for the in situ glacial till and their range of variation were assessed from the moisture- density tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples. An appropriate specific gravity was used in calculating the submerged density. Bedrock density and its range of variation were determined from the results of measured densities of representative rock cores.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-32 REV 16 10/09 2.5.4.2.2.

Wave Velocities The compression and shear wave velocities presented in Table 2.5-9 for the crushed-rock fill, glacial till, and in situ rock are measured values (References 1, 2, and 3). The range of variation of wave velocities has been estimated with consideration for the inherent uncertainties in methods of measurement and variations in grain size, density, and strength of the various materials.

2.5.4.2.3.

Poisson's Ratio The tabulated values of Poisson's ratio for the compacted rock fill and glacial till were computed from the shear and compression wave velocities. Where possible, the load-settlement data from plate load tests were compared to provide a further check on the values computed from the wave velocities. Values for in situ rock were estimated from the seismic investigation (Reference 1).

The range of variation for Poisson's ratio was estimated with consideration for probable differences in wave velocities, grain size, density, and strength of the materials being considered.

2.5.4.2.4.

Static Modulus of Elasticity The tabulated static moduli of elasticity for the rock fill and glacial till were computed from the results of load-settlement behavior recorded during plate load testing and, for the glacial till, from unconfined compression tests performed on relatively undisturbed samples (References 1, 2, and 3). Laboratory values for static modulus of elasticity were derived from unconfined compression tests. Based on certain empirical formulae (Reference 37) and literature research (References 38 and 39), combined with experience, knowledge, or rock characteristics such as Rock Quality Designation (RQD), vugs, discontinuities, and clay seams and tempered with conservatism, a factor of 0.25 was applied to the average laboratory values. This figure was then taken to be the in situ static modulus of elasticity. A range of +/-50 percent was utilized in presenting this value to account for the expected variability of characteristics within the Bass Islands Group.

2.5.4.2.5.

Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity The dynamic moduli for the glacial till were determined from elastic analysis of the data provided by the Pulsating Load Triaxial Tests. The dynamic moduli of the compacted rock fill and the bedrock were determined by elastic analysis of the results of the field seismic studies (References 2 and 3).

The range of values presented reflects the accuracy of field measurement and analysis together with the anticipated variations in grain size, density, and/or strength of the various materials.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-33 REV 16 10/09 2.5.4.2.6.

Shear Moduli The shear moduli of the till maerials were computed from the results of Pulsating Load Triaxial Tests. For the compacted rock fill and the bedrock, the shear moduli were computed using the elastic relationship between the shear modulus, modulus of elasticity, and Poisson's ratio. The range of values reflects inherent uncertainties in methods of analysis and anticipated variations in grain size, density, and/or strength of the various materials.

2.5.4.2.7.

Damping Values The tabulated values of damping are based largely on a review of available published data.

The values of damping presented for the glacial till were computed from the results of Pulsating Load Triaxial testing. The damping capacity of the bedrock was developed from various dynamic tests (Reference 1). All of the tabulated damping values are expressed as a percentage of critical damping.

2.5.4.2.8.

Rock Quality The quality of the rock as observed in recovered drill core was evaluated by measuring:

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

The data are included on the core boring logs (Figures 2.5-33 through 2.5-55). The average RQD in the upper 15 to 20 ft of bedrock in all borings at the RHR complex was 47 percent, or the "poor" quality classification. The average core recovery throughout this depth interval was 92.4 percent, sufficiently high to yield reliable RQD values. Fragmented zones are present. They range in thickness from 6 in. to 3 ft and occur at different elevations in each boring. The lack of depth and thickness correlation between borings suggests that the fragmented zones are not continuous laterally across the site. Fracture density ranged typically from very close (less than 2 in.) to close (2 to 6 in.) in the upper 15 to 20 ft of bedrock at both the RHR complex and the reactor site. The fracture density is directly influenced by the spacing of shale partings along with the core separates during drilling operations and subsequent handling.

2.5.4.2.9.

Rock Strength Corrected values for ultimate compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of bedrock, as determined by laboratory unconfined compression tests, are presented in Table 2.5-5. Elastic moduli values were computed from plots of unit axial stress versus unit axial strain derived from laboratory test results. Records of these laboratory test results are contained in Appendix 2D. Results of unconfined compression tests on rock from borings taken from the reactor site and from the RHR complex are presented in Tables 2.5-5 and 2.5-6.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-34 REV 16 10/09 2.5.4.3. Plot Plan A topographic map of the site showing the location of Fermi 2 facilities is given in Figure 2.4-3. The plant facilities are shown in relation to bedrock topography in Figure 2.5-12. The boring plan in relation to plant facility locations is given in Figures 2.5-13 and 2.5-14. Subsurface sections in relation to plant facilities are presented in Figures 2.5-15 through 2.5-

20. Structural geology in relation to facility location is shown in Figures 2.5

-22 and 2.5-23.2.5.4.4. Soil and Rock Characteristics A table and profiles of a compressional and shear wave velocity survey are presented in Subsection 2.5.1 and in Figures 2.5-58 through 2.5-61. Graphic core boring logs are presented in Subsection 2.5.1 and in Figures 2.5-24 through 2.5-56. Compressional and shear wave velocities are presented in Subsections 2.5.1.2.9, 2.5.1.2.10, and 2.5.4.2.

2.5.4.5. Excavations and Backfill 2.5.4.5.1.

Rock Excavation Early in the reactor building excavation, a test blasting program was conducted to control the excavation blasting at Fermi 2 relative to Fermi 1 (References 13, 40, 41, and 42). Ground motions were measured at varying distances from test blasts for a selected range of blast loads, and attenuation data were developed as shown in Figure 2.5-63. The blasting criteria for limiting onsite seismic disturbances were (a) particle velocity limited to 1 in./sec, and (b) particle acceleration limited to 5 percent of gravity. The blasting program was carefully supervised by qualified engineering personnel and was monitored with instruments. Subsequent to blasting operations, the exposed foundation bedrock was sluiced with high-pressure water jets and carefully examined by a qualified geologist to ensure that no excessive natural fracturing or blasting back-break existed that might be unsuitable for foundation support. All heavily fractured rock, clay seams, weathered shale, and other unsuitable materials exposed at final foundation grade were removed. Based on the limiting criteria, the production shot loads for the reactor/auxiliary building foundation excavation were as follows.

Pounds per Delay Minimum Distance From Fermi 1 (ft) 25 400 40 500 50 600 65 700 80 800 100 900 150 1000 175 1100 200 1200 FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-35 REV 16 10/09 The charge limitation for the initial blasting to excavate for the RHR complex foundation was based on the distance to Fermi 2 facilities, as follows:

Pounds per Delay Distance to the Nearest 144-in.-Diameter Circulating Water Pipe (ft) 0.30 60 0.60 75 1.40 100 3.50 150 6.25 200 On the basis of blast-induced ground or structure motions measured during initial blasts (Reference 43), the charge limitation was increased as follows:

Pounds per Delay Distance to the Circulating Water Pipe (ft) 1.0 60 1.0 75 1.4 100 3.5 150 6.25 200 2.5.4.5.2.

Earthwork Fill materials required to raise the site to required final grade were obtained from an onsite rock quarry and supplemented by offsite quarry-supplied rock. Fill placed at the site and properly compacted was used for the support of minor structures. All Category I and other major structures are supported on competent bedrock; the walls were framed and placed on the structural base slab. Crushed rock was then compacted in layers between the walls and the blast-excavated rock face.

A test section of compacted stone fill material was constructed to permit onsite plate load testing and seismic studies of the fill material (Reference 3). Plate load tests were performed on both the compacted crushed-rock fill and the in situ glacial till. The locations of the plate load tests are indicated in Figure 2.5-14. The results of the plate load tests are given in Table 2.5-14. A seismic investigation of the compacted crushed- rock test area was also performed. The results of the compression wave velocity measurements are shown in Figure 2.5-64. Information on compaction criteria, gradation criteria, methods of placing and compacting, and thickness of lifts of the crushed- rock structural backfill is found in Detroit Edison specification 3071-37, Fill Materials, Placement and Compaction (Appendix 2C), and in Building Work specification for RHR Complex 3071-142. Because of the difficulty of preparing representative samples for laboratory testing, there were no laboratory static or dynamic tests performed on samples of the crushed-stone compacted fill material. Crushed

-stone compacted fill material obtained a high degree of density when placed in accordance with specifications 3071-37 and 3071-142. This dense compacted-rock fill with its select gradation was further reinforced by the interlocking mechanism of the angular, well-graded particle sizes of the rock fragments and afforded FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-36 REV 16 10/09 resistance to penetration by conventional sampling methods. Field plate load and seismic tests were used as the basis for deriving the values presented in Table 2.5-9. Consolidation tests were done on relatively undisturbed samples of glacial till (Reference 3). The results of the tests are shown in Figure 2.5-65. There are no Category I buildings placed directly on crushed-rock fill. Additional testing on the in-place structural backfill after its placement in accordance with the specification for such placement was not performed. The onsite quality control program required constant inspection to ensure that the work was being performed in accordance with the referenced specification. Since the test results taken from the large compacted test fill area formed the basis for developing the specification, assurance that specification objectives throughout the site were being met was obtained by using trained personnel in a continuously monitored quality control (QC) program. Fill that did not meet the specification requirements was rejected. Construction supervision and constant QC inspection were utilized to ensure that all work was continuously performed in accordance with the specifications. During the course of safety evaluation review, the NRC requested additional information regarding backfill (drawings) for structures and components. This information was provided to the NRC with Reference 32 in June 1981, wherein it was mentioned that the following representative drawings show the backfill at the site: 6C721-2106, 6C721-2324, 6M721-2680, and 6M721-4232.

2.5.4.6. Ground Water Conditions A summary of ground water conditions appears in Subsection 2.4.13. The history of ground water conditions at the site is summarized below.

The natural surficial deposits at the site consist of low- permeability glacial till, lacustrine clay, and peat. The surficial deposits locally act as a confining layer above the Paleozoic bedrock aquifer, and a slight artesian pressure exists at the site.

Various parameters were investigated and their relationships to local ground water features have been noted. Pressure tests were conducted in borings 201, 203, 209, and 210 in 1969 during the comprehensive foundation investigation for the reactor/auxiliary building. Test data are shown in Table 2.5-15. The results of these tests are presented to the right of the boring logs as shown on Figures 2.5-33, 2.5-35, 2.5-42, and 2.5-43. Pressure testing was accomplishe d by means of inflatable packers set in the area to be tested. Water under pressure was forced into this area and the rate of take of the water at various pressures was recorded in gallons per minute. From these data, permeability of the rock was calculated by use of the following formula: K= C (2.5-1) where K = permeability in feet per year

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-37 REV 16 10/09 Q = flow in gallons per minute H = head of water in feet of water acting on the test section C p = a constant of 4900 for nx-sized hole and a 10-ft test section (Reference 44)

Ground water observations were made by observing the rate of artesian flow at varying depths. These observations were made by drilling to a certain depth and collecting water as it flowed from the top of the boring and timing the rate of filling of a container of known volume in gallons. It was then possible to determine rate of artesian flow in gallons per minute at various levels in the boring. Further ground water observations were made after completion of the borings by inserting standpipes in the borings, allowing the water to rise to its static level, and measuring the elevation of the top of the water. Other observations were made at this time in regard to water quality. These observations ranged from simply noting the odor of H 2S gas (shown on the boring logs) to collecting ground water samples for chemical analyses of the ground water. In 1972, foundation investigations for the RHR complex included the installation of six piezometers in borings RHR 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8. The installation of these piezometers and data gathered from them refute the 1969 water

-level data in that water levels are generally much lower and artesian flow is not noted. This is due exclusively to construction dewatering. The overall result has been to reverse the ground water gradient at the plant site from toward the lake to away from the lake.

During quarry operations between 1969 and 1972, a decline in ground water level occurred.

Also, during this period a decline occurred because of a regional drought condition. After the spring of 1971, the quarry operation was restricted to the southern end. The northern part was diked and functioned as a ground water recharge pit, with the water level maintained full at about Elevation 570 ft. Quarry operations ceased on June 30, 1972. Water-level observations were made during and after the quarry operations in several observation wells, as shown in Figure 2.4-25. Water

-level data are given in Table 2.4-7. As mentioned above, dewatering was carried out specifically for rock excavation. Conventional dewatering by pumping from sumps was employed. A grout curtain was constructed around the reactor/auxiliary building rock excavation to decrease the extent of dewatering required and to minimize the extent of depression of the surrounding ground water level. The curtain wall grout plan for the excavation of the Fermi 2 reactor/auxiliary building (References 45 and 46) delineated 96 grout holes spaced at 12-ft centers and located as shown in Figure 2.5-66. A grout curtain was not used for the RHR complex excavation. Grouting of the rock mass under the plant facilities will force that moving ground water which would have flowed through the grouted rock to be diverted around it. This diversion will increase slightly the ground water flow rate in the rock immediately outside and below the grout curtain and might increase slightly the solutioning of the carbonate rocks in that zone. In view of the low flow rate of the ground water in the bedrock aquifer (see Subsection 2.4.13.2), the minor expected increase in flow rate through diversion of ground water around the grout curtain is not expected to significantly accelerate solutioning at the site.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-38 REV 16 10/09 Water samples for laboratory analyses were obtained from stratigraphic horizons within the site area during the 1969 boring program. The elevations at which water samples were obtained are noted in the boring logs. Some water samples were obtained from artesian flows at various depths during the borings, usually after the boring had flowed for several hours. After completion of the boring, the remaining samples were obtained from borings 210 and 209 at 10-ft intervals between double-inflatable packers from artesian flow through a 3/4-in. discharge pipe. At each sample interval, the water flowed a minimum of 20 minutes before a sample was taken.

Selected ground water samples were tested to determine pH, sulfate content, and chloride content. These tests were performed by Mr. Bernard Erlin, Materials and Concrete Consultant. The results of chemical analyses of ground water samples are shown in Table 2.5-16. All of the ground water tested had a relatively high sulfate content, in the range of 1168 to 1865 ppm. The depth at which ground water samples were obtained varied from the rock surface to more than 200 ft below the rock surface. No marked variation of sulfate content with depth was observed. The chloride content of the ground water, as sampled, ranged from 21 to 1164 ppm. The random and occasional high chloride contents measured were affected by boring operations where salt was used as an additive to the boring fluid. Salt was used with the boring fluid in borings 209 and 210 and in zones of close fractures; this would have affected the chloride content of ground water sampled from adjacent borings. Based on the results of measured chloride content of samples that should not have been affected by salt in the boring fluid, the natural ground water at the site appears to have a chloride content of less than 100 ppm. The hydrogen ion concentration (pH) of the ground water ranged from 7.3 to 8.1; thus, the ground water is not acidic. Although the ground water was not tested for the presence of free carbon dioxide, it can reasonably be assumed that the water has been saturated with calcium carbonate by its passage through limestone and dolomitic bedrock.

2.5.4.7. Response of Soil and Rock To Dynamic Loading Response spectra for the SSE and the OBE are presented in Figures 2.5-67 and 2.5-68 respectively.

The SSE (originally designated design-basis earthquake or DBE on the project) was anchored at the zero period acceleration level previously described and configured to match the shape of existing spectra for similar site conditions. At the time the facility design bases were established, spectra from El Centro 1940, Olympia 1949, El Centro 1934, Helena 1935, and Taft 1952 were used in developing envelope spectra for design bases purposes. The OBE was similarly shaped but anchored at a zero period acceleration approximately half the SSE. In the decade since the Fermi design bases were established, more conservative assumptions have been made regarding the shape of facility site response spectra in intermediate frequency ranges. For this reason, the Fermi project developed a site-specific earthquake response spectrum, incorporating all potential conservatisms, and reevaluated those items in the facility necessary for shutdown with a loss of offsite power, to ensure the FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-39 REV 16 10/09 acceptability of the plant with respect to site

-specific earthquake excitation. These activities reaffirmed the Fermi 2 seismic design adequacy.

Soil structure interaction phenomena were evaluated at the Fermi site, and found to be negligible. Category I structures at Fermi 2 are founded in bedrock. A study completed for the Fermi 2 structures founded on rock showed that it can be safely assumed in accordance with existing studies and the unique finite element analysis undertaken for Fermi, that the Fermi 2 foundation behaves as a rigid medium, and that soil structure interaction effects are negligible. Therefore, the site earthquake response spectra developed for the bedrock represent the base excitation to be experienced by facility Category I structures.

Category I buried piping and electrical ducting runs between Category I structures at the Fermi site. These buried pipes and ducts have been subjected to a rigorous dynamic analysis including the effects of interaction with the supporting foundation material. Flexibility has been provided at all building and manhole intersection points to minimize potential concrete strains. The design integrity of these buried components is proven by evaluation of anticipated earthquake wave propagation phenomena. The response spectra indicate the estimated response of a structure subjected to earthquake ground motion. The spectra are presented over a range of frequencies corresponding to the natural frequencies of the various structural elements. The spectra represent the maximum amplitude of motion in the various elements of the structure for typical degrees of damping.

Response spectra are also discussed in Section 3.7.

2.5.4.8. Liquefaction Potential All Category I structures are supported within the Bass Islands dolomite, which is not susceptible to liquefaction.

2.5.4.9. Earthquake Design Basis The earthquake design basis is presented in Subsection 2.5.2.

2.5.4.10. Static Analyses The strength of the foundation rock was evaluated in the laboratory by means of unconfined compression tests (Subsection 2.5.1.2.10). Considering these values to be appropriate for rock with an RQD of 100, a reduction factor was selected based on an assessment of the measured RQD values, information on vug volume and size, fracture orientation and spacing, and presence of clay and shale seams (Subsection 2.5.1.2.2.2). On this basis, the ultimate bearing capacity of the rock mass in the plant and RHR complex is considered to be on the order of 300,000 lb/ft

2. Using a factor of safety of 12, the recommended design bearing capacity is 25,000 lb/ft
2. However, no credit was taken for a possible increase in the recommended bearing capacity by rock grouting.

Settlement was computed using the elastic moduli information with modifications based on experience, RQD, vugs, discontinuities, and clay seams to produce conservative deformation moduli appropriate for the in situ rock. The total settlement of the RHR complex is estimated to be on the order of 0.25 in. for an assumed applied pressure of 3000 lb/ft

2. The FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-40 REV 16 10/09 total settlement of the reactor /auxiliary building is conservatively estimated to be on the order of 0.3 to 0.5 in. for an assumed applied pressure of 25,000 lb/ft
2. Computed lateral pressures are presented in Table 2.5-17. In computing lateral pressures appropriate for the compacted rock fill, it was necessary to estimate the probable angle of internal friction of this material. Based on observation of the material placed in the field and on research of available published data, the angle of internal friction was assumed to be 40. All static lateral pressure data presented in Table 2.5

-17 are expressed as equivalent fluid pressures. For rigid walls, the tabulated values of lateral pressures are derived for the case of earth pressure "at rest." For cantilever walls, the tabulated values are derived for the case of "active" earth pressure.

Dynamic lateral pressure increments due to rock fill were determined using methods described in Reference 47. The dynamic increments of lateral pressure on the walls of the substructures due to ground water were obtained using Westergard's Theory (Reference 48),

modified by Matuo and Ohara (Reference 49). These lateral pressure increments for the RHR complex and reactor/auxiliary building are provided in Figures 3.8-48 and 3.8-49, respectively.

Static pressures imposed by rock on rigid or cantilever walls above the ground water level will be negligible. The lateral pressure in rock cuts below the water table will be limited to hydrostatic water pressure.

2.5.4.11. Criteria and Design Methods 2.5.4.11.1.

Foundations The criteria for foundation support are based on the properties of the underlying materials (Subsection 2.5.4.2) and soil and rock characteristics (Subsection 2.5.4.4). The ultimate bearing capacity of the rock mass in the plant area is estimated to be on the order of 300,000 lb/ft 2 (Subsection 2.5.4.10). Assuming a combined static and dynamic maximum loading as high as 25,000 lb/ft 2, the factor of safety against further foundation failure could exceed 12. Considering the rock to be strengthened by the grouting operations, the factor of safety is considerably in excess of 12. The average foundation load data for Category I and other structures are given in Table 2.5-18. The average foundation loads are considerably less than the assumed 25,000 lb/ft 2; therefore, the factor of safety will be larger than 12. The criteria for seismic design are presented in Subsections 2.5.2.10 and 2.5.2.11. Seismic design methods are presented in Section 3.7.

2.5.4.11.2.

Cement In consideration of the high sulfate content of the natural ground water, sulfate-resistant cement was used for all cement grout and subsurface concrete that will be in contact with the ground water. Type V portland cement conforming to the requirements of ASTM Designation C150-68 was used. In concrete work above Elevation 573.0 ft, Type II portland cement conforming to the requirements of ASTM Designation C150-68 was used. As stated in Subsection 2.5.1.2.7, CSA A5-1971 cement was also used.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-41 REV 16 10/09 The use of calcium chloride or other chlorides as admixtures incorporated into concrete or grout mixtures was prohibited as such admixtures reduce the resistance of the concrete or grout to sulfate attack.

2.5.4.12. Techniques To Improve Subsurface Conditions 2.5.4.12.1.

Grouting - Reactor/Auxiliary Building Rock strata below the foundation levels of the Category I structures were pressure grouted. It ensured that no continuous open zones existed across the excavation in the bedrock. The complete grouting program for the reactor/auxiliary building was successfully carried out (References 50, 51, and 52). The sequence of grouting operations for the reactor/auxiliary building consisted of drilling, washing, pressure testing, and grouting each grout hole. The elevations of the bases of grout holes were selected for the reactor/auxiliary building at elevations of 483 and 499 ft, respectively. These elevations were chosen on careful study of RQD, core recovery, and fracture data, modified after visual inspection of the rock core itself. Since the in situ rock was judged to be sufficiently sound to support the vertical loads and grouting was performed only to provide a more homogeneous rock mass beneath the structures, it was judged that grouting into the underlying Salina Group would have no effect on foundation stability.

Grouting was performed in two stages, herein referred to as first and second zones, extending to depths of 6 and 50 ft below the rock surface, respectively. Initial or primary holes within each zone were spaced 30 ft on centers, and final closure was achieved by subsequently grouting all intermediate holes (secondary, tertiary, and quaternary holes). The locations of all holes are presented in Figures 2.5-69 and 2.5-70. During grouting operations, two additional grout holes were drilled (Nos. 75A and 76A).

Hole 75A was drilled to replace hole 75, which was abandoned when a drill bit was lodged in the hole. Hole 76A was drilled because of the low grout take (1.5 ft

3) in hole 77. The relatively low grout take in hole 76A indicated that intermediate holes were probably not necessary when low grout takes are recorded.

All grout holes were drilled with percussion drilling equipment, and any anomalies in the general rate of penetration of drilling were noted. On some holes, detailed logs of rate of penetration were recorded. These records assisted in delineating the extent of rock fracturing and thus assisted the planning of grout mixes. In general, the rate of penetration of rock varied between 20 and 50 sec/ft. Very few voids were encountered; the largest was a 20-in. void observed in hole 67. All grout holes penetrated to an elevation of 515 ft, with the exception of holes 51 and 27, which extended to 518 and 526 ft, respectively. These two holes were terminated short because of drilling difficulties.

Subsequent to drilling operations, holes were washed and pressure tested. On many holes, the drilling operations combined with a relatively large flow of ground water provided clean holes. Consequently, no additional washing was required. Each hole was pressure tested at a selected pressure and the steady water take was recorded. The results of pressure testing were used in determining the initial grout mixes for each particular hole.

Grout mixes injected into the grout holes all contained a 2:1 ratio of cement to flyash. The ratio of water to cement plus flyash varied from 3:1 to slightly less than 1:1. For holes with FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-42 REV 16 10/09 high grout takes, final grout mixes included sand, which was added to give a sand-to-cement ratio of 1:1 or 1.5:1. All holes were pressure grouted in one stage. The grouting of each hole was started with a water

-to-cement plus flyash ratio of 3:1 or 2:1. If the pressure did not increase after approximately 10 ft 3 of grout had been pumped, then the mix was thickened initially by decreasing the water

-to-cement ratio and then further, if necessary, by adding sand to the mix. All holes were grouted to refusal. Individual grout takes for various mixes are summarized in Table 2.5-19. A total of 1644 ft 3 of pressure grout was injected into the grout holes. An additional 72.5 ft 3 of grout was used to backfill the upper portion of the holes above the packer. Table 2.5-20 summarizes the grout take for each zone. Detailed descriptions of the foundation rock encountered in five exploratory borings, drilled following completion of the grouting program, are presented in Figures 2.5-71 through 2.5-75. Grout encountered in rock cores is noted in the logs of borings. Only one void of 0.3 ft was encountered in the post-grout exploratory boring in boring 216. Since boring 216 was drilled within 5 ft of a secondary grout hole and the void contained no grout, it was not an interconnected void, but an isolated feature. Upon completion, all five of the exploratory borings were tremie grouted. Subsequent to grouting operations, a complete rock subgrade inspection of the reactor/auxiliary building was carried out; the results of this inspection are summarized in Figure 2.5-76.

2.5.4.12.2.

Grouting - Residual Heat Removal Complex The sequence of grouting operations (References 53 and 54) for the RHR complex consisted of drilling, washing, and grouting each grout hole. The elevation of the bases of the holes was selected at 530 ft. Grouting was performed in two zones extending to depths of 6 and 20 ft below a concrete leveling mat placed over the original rock surface at Elevation 550 ft.

Initial or primary holes within each zone were spaced 30 ft on centers and final closure was achieved by subsequently grouting all intermediate holes (secondary, tertiary, and a few quaternary holes). Figures 2.5-77 through 2.5-81 show locations of all holes, as well as amounts of grout taken. Prior to drilling and grouting operations, eight exploratory holes were core drilled to depths of 20 ft, and then washed and pressure tested. The logs of these borings are shown in Figures 2.5-82 through 2.5-85. Each interval was tested at a selected pressure and the steady water take was recorded.

All grout holes were drilled with percussion drilling equipment and then washed prior to grouting. Grout mixes injected into the grout holes contained a 1:1 to 1.5:1 ratio of cement to flyash. The ratio of water to cement plus flyash varied from 3:1 to approximately 1:1.

The grouting of each hole was generally started with a water

-to-cement plus flyash ratio of 3:1 and if the pressure did not increase after approximately 10 minutes, the mix was thickened by decreasing the water

-to-cement ratio. All holes were grouted to refusal. Table B1, Appendix 2B, summarizes the grout take for each zone. Detailed descriptions of the foundation rock encountered in eight exploratory borings drilled following completion of the grouting program are presented in Figures 2.5-86 through 2.5-89, and water-pressure test results are shown in Table B2, Appendix 2B.

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-43 REV 16 10/09 Subsequent to cleaning the exposed rock surface, and prior to placement of the concrete mat, a complete rock subgrade inspection was carried out. A map summarizing the results of this inspection is shown in Figure 2.5-90. In addition, photographs were taken completely covering the side walls of the excavation and are available for inspection.

A detailed report on the results of the foundation treatment is found in Appendix 2B.

2.5.4.12.3.

Effectiveness of Grouting Program The grouting program was intended to seal cracks in the foundation bedrock that may have been horizontally continuous. As part of the preliminary explorations and later the grouting program, observations were made during drilling with respect to water losses and dropping of drill rods. It was observed that water losses were generally not great and that there were no instances of drill rod drop. Based on these observations, no areas of major or continuous solution activity were detected. However, the core recovered did show vugs, indicating that minor solution activity was present. To ensure that no continuous horizontal zones could be present below Category I structures, pressure grouting was undertaken. The grouting program has the further benefit of enhancing the bearing capacity of the rock. The grouting program consisted of drilling primary, secondary, and, where necessary, tertiary grout holes until the requirements for discontinuing grouting were achieved. Subsequent to grouting, a number of holes were drilled to ascertain the effectiveness of the grouting program. The borings drilled after grouting generally produced the same results as the exploratory holes prior to grouting. That is, the core recovery and RQD showed no appreciable difference. Furthermore, the postgrouting borings showed very little evidence of grout in the core or drill water.

The lack of grout in postgrouting borings is attributed to the nonexistence of open or continuous solutioning in the bedrock. The low grout takes during consolidation grouting and the lack of grout in postgrouting borings provide evidence of the noncontinuity of any open features. In addition, the lack of both drill rod drops and water losses in postgrouting borings further indicates that no open channels exist in the bedrock foundation.

2.5.4.12.4.

Base Slab Construction The reactor/auxiliary building base slab is a 4-ft-thick reinforced-concrete slab consisting of 4000 psi concrete at 28 days with ASTM A-615 grade 60 reinforcing steel. The slab is supported by a leveling slab also constructed of 4000 psi concrete that is in turn supported by pressure-grouted competent bedrock. Shortly after placement of the base slab, radial superficial cracks appeared. A report covering the investigation and treatment of these cracks is documented in Reference 55.

All possibilities that may have caused the cracking of the slab were considered. However, after a review of all of the postulated potential causes for the surface hairline cracks, and a detailed observation and mapping of the location, arrangement, depth, and thickness of the cracks themselves, it is concluded that the cracks were most probably caused by the restraint of the slab at its perimeter during temperature fluctuations and by shrinkage strains that developed during the curing of the thick and heavily reinforced concrete slab. The cracks were very thin, and most of them did not penetrate the full depth of the slab. The lack of differential vertical displacement on both sides of a crack indicated that vertical shear planes FERMI 2 UFSAR 2.5-44 REV 16 10/09 resulting from upheaval or settlement of the underlying concrete level slab or grouted bedrock had not occurred. The radial symmetry of the cracks further supported the belief that vertical displacement, local, random, or general in orientation, did not occur. As stated on page A7 of the D&M report "Results of Rock Foundation Treatment," dated January 12, 1975 (Reference 23), "No zones of excessive fracturing or highly vugged material exist in horizontal layers across the site; localized openings in the foundation rock have been adequately treated; and the near surface fractures have been filled." Part B of the same referenced report outlines the careful attention placed on preparing the rock surface to receive the 2- to 4-ft-thick level mat and then the 4-ft-thick structural slab that later developed thin radial superficial cracks.

After reviewing these data, reviewing the conclusions presented by consultants, and observing and investigating the extent and orientation of the cracking, it is concluded that the source of the cracking is not the solutioning or jointing in the bedrock. The placement of crushed-rock fill outside the subbasement walls and at an elevation higher than the slab was not related to the cracking. The schedule for fill placement was done one section at a time and generally followed the initial observation of radial cracking.

2.5.5. Slope

Stability During the excavation for the reactor/auxiliary building and RHR complex, which included blasting, there were no instances of instability of the excavation slopes and therefore no need for stabilization measures.

There are no excavation or natural slopes whose failure could adversely affect the safe operation of the plant. However, a shore barrier was erected at the east end of the plant bordering on Lake Erie. For a discussion of the shore barrier, see Subsections 2.4.5 and

3.4.4.5.

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.5 GEOLOGY

AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES 2.5-45 REV 16 10/09

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.5 GEOLOGY

AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES 2.5-46 REV 16 10/09

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

Ells on February 6, 1975).

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

48, 1968.

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.5 GEOLOGY

AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES 2.5-47 REV 16 10/09

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

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

36. R. G. Stearns and D. W. Wilson, Relationship of Earthquakes and Geology in West Tennessee and Adjacent Areas, Manuscript, Tennessee Valley Authority, 1973. 37. I. W. Farmer, "Engineering Properties of Rocks," E. & F. N. Spon Ltd., pp. 30-40, 1968. 38. D. U. Deere, University of Swansea Short Course on Rock Mechanics, 148 pages, 1967. 39. K. G. Stagg and O. C. Zienkiewicz, Rock Mechanics in Engineering Practice , John Wiley and Sons, 1968.
40. Dames & Moore, Test Blasting Program, Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Station near Monroe, Michigan, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 14 pages, July

2, 1969. 41. Dames & Moore, Quarry Planning, Blasting and Safety Procedures, Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Station, Monroe, Michigan, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 16 pages, August 29, 1969.

42. Dames & Moore, Blast-Induced Vibration Sensitivity Study, Enrico Fermi Nuclear Power Station Near Monroe, Michigan, Report for the Detroit Edison Company, 6 pages, September 29, 1969.
43. AEC from Detroit Edison, EF-2-21,955a, January 17, 1974; and Edison Research Report 69H19-8, RHR Complex.
44. Design of Small Dams, Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department of Interior, p.

194, 1973.

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

2.5 GEOLOGY

AND SEISMOLOGY REFERENCES 2.5-48 REV 16 10/09

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-1

SUMMARY

OF MAJOR FOLDS IN REGION OF FERMI 2 Name Identification a Kankakee Arch Major Movement S, B, G Ordovician or Devonian to Late Mississippian Michigan Basin S, B, G Early to Late Paleozoic Appalachian Basin S, B, G Early to Late Paleozoic Valley & Ridge S, B, G Late Paleozoic Cincinnati Arch B Ordovician to Post - Pennsylvanian Findlay Arch B Cambrian to Devonian Algonquin Arch B Cambrian to Devonian Waverly Arch B Early Ordovician Howell Anticline B, G Ordovician through Mississippian Lucas Monocline B, G Ordovician through Mississippian Freedom Anticline B, G Ordovician through Mississippian Chatham Sag B Late Silurian and Post

-Silurian Washtenaw Anticlinorium B Middle Ordovician through Late Mississippian Logansport Sag B Ordovician or Devonian to Late Mississippian Francisville Arch B Mississippian

a S = Surface. B = Borehole. G = Geophysical

.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-2

SUMMARY

OF MAJOR FAULTS Fault Name Identification a Displacement Bowling Green Fault Last Movement S, B, G West side down Post-Middle Ordovician to Pre-Devonian Electric Fault B South side down Post-Silurian Tekonsha Trend B, G (Fracture zone)

Post-Ordovician Rough Creek- Kentucky River Fault System G S, B, G North side down

(Except Kentucky River Fault, south side down)

Cretaceous (Rough Creek)

Post-Ordovician to Pre- Mississippian (Kentucky River) Keweenawan

-Lake Owen Fault System S, B, G South side down Keweenawan and Post -

Keweenawan Albion-Scipio Trend B, G (Fracture zone)

Post-Middle Ordovician to Pre-Pennsylvanian Royal Center Fault B Southeast side down Post-Devonian Fortville Fault B Southeast side down Post-Devonian a S = Surface. B = Borehole.

G = Geophysical

.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-3 Boring OBSERVED WATER FLOW AND WATER LEVEL DATA Surface Number Boring Bottom Elevation Artesian Flow From Elevation Elevation Artesian Flow From Bottom of 550-510 (gpm) Piezometric Surface 12 69 (lake level at Boring (gpm) Piezometric Surface 12 69 (lake level at Fermi 1, 573.0) 201 Fermi 1, 572.8) 565.0 451.4 5 20 569.5 570.0 202 564.3 438.0 5 36 568.4 569.9 203 565.4 448.9 3 22 569.8 569.8 204 564.9 452.4 3 10 568.9 569.7 205 565.8 448.6 3 50 570.0 569.9 206 567.2 455.9 0 3 570.1 569.7 207 566.8 454.8 5 17 569.9 569.6 208 566.9 454.2 0.5 0.5 569.9 569.9 209 567.0 253.1 2 60 571.9 571.1 210 566.6 451.6 0.5 20 569.9 569.8 211 567.4 452.4 0 10 570.2 569.8 212 567.2 410.4 4 43 569.4 569.7 213 568.0 452.5 0 0 570.0 569.8 214 565.6 453.2 5 5 569.0 569.6 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-4 Ambient Station AMBIENT VIBRATION MEASUREMENTS Depth of Number Predominant Period of Bedrock (ft) 1 Ground Motion (sec) 2 0.7 to 1.1 2 20 0.10 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-5 Boring ROCK COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS FERMI 2 REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING SITE Depth Below Original Number Surface (ft) Elevation (ft) Formation a Ultimate Compressive Density (lb/ft 3) Modulus of Strength (lb/ft 2) 20 Elasticity (lb/ft 2) 27.0 546.7 BI 154 2.26 x 106 9.0 x 108 32A 52.0 527.6 BI 145 1.39 x 106 6.28 x 108 28 106.0 466.5 S 162 1.30 x 106 3.75 x 108 4 58.0 514.5 BI 138 1.12 x 106 6.51 x 108 201 50.7 514.3 BI 151 1.29 x 106 5.75 x 108 201 73.2 491.8 BI 169 1.62 x 106 5.04 x 108 202 49.2 515.1 BI 146 1.41 x 106 3.89 x 108 203 58.2 507.2 BI 154 1.31 x 106 3.17 x 108 208 16.2 550.7 BI 145 0.62 x 106 3.29 x 108 210 20.6 546.0 BI 153 0.99 x 106 2.2 x 108 211 18.4 549.0 BI 170 2.70 x 106 1.8 x 108 211 35.1 532.3 BI 146 0.85 x 106 2.5 x 108 213 24.6 543.4 BI 149 0.82 x 106 7.2 x 108 a BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-6 ROCK COMPRESSION TEST RESULTS - FERMI 2 RHR COMPLEX Boring Number Depth (ft)

Formation a RHR-2 Ultimate Compressive Strength (lb/ft

2) 39.1 BI 1.31 x 106 RHR-3 29.2 BI 1.18 x 106 RHR-4 31.0 BI 1.46 x 106 RHR-5 40.5 BI 1.20 x 106 RHR-6 29.2 BI 1.49 x 106 RHR-7 33.9 BI 1.06 x 106 RHR-8 36.3 BI 1.09 x 106 a BI = Bass Islands Group.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-7 SHOCKSCOPE TEST RESULTS Boring Number Depth (ft)

Formation aVelocity of Compressional Wave 4 Propagation (ft/sec) 28.5 BI 12,500 4 36 BI 10,500 4 42 BI 10,000 4 58.5 BI 11,000 18 29 BI 14,000 18 40 BI 14,500 79 30 BI 11,500 79 97 BI 12,500 79 240 S 14,500 a BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group

.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-8 RESONANT COLUMN TEST RESULTS Boring Number Depth (ft)

Formation a Rock Type 32A Shear Modulus (lb/ft

2) 25 BI Dolomite 150 x 106 25 96 S Calcareous Shale 30 x 106 a BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group

.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-9 STATIC AND DYNAMIC SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES

- REACTOR/AUXILIARY BUILDING Property Crushed-Rock Fill Bass IslandsIn Situ Glacial Till Density (lb/ft 3): Bedrock Dry density 139 + 4% 125 + 4% 150 + 10% Wet density 144 + 5% 140 + 5% -- Submerged density 90 + 3% 80 + 3% 110 + 10% Wave velocities (ft/sec):

Compression wave 2,500 + 15%

7,700 + 7%

13,000 + 10%

Shear wave 900 + 25% 2,200 + 5%

7,600 + 15%

Poisson's Ratio: Static or dynamic 0.4 + 10% 0.45 + 10% 0.24 + 10% Modulus of elasticity (lb/ft 2): Static 1.2 x 10 6 + 25% 0.5 x 10 6 + 20% 120 x 10 6 + 50% Dynamic 4.0 x 10 6 + 30% 1.2 x 10 6+ 30% 180 x 10 6 + 50% Increase per foot of depth 0.48 x 10 6 + 25% 0.48 x 10 6 + 20% 0 Shear modulus (lb/ft 2): Dynamic 1.4 x 10 6 + 30% 0.4 x 10 6 + 30% 72 x 10 6 + 50% Increase per foot of depth 0.17 x 10 6 + 25% 0.17 x 10 6 + 20% 0 Damping values (percent of critical):

Within earthquake levels 7% to 10% 5% to 8% 1%

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-10 STATIC AND DYNAMIC SOIL AND ROCK PROPERTIES - RHR COMPLEX Crushed-Rock Fill Glacial Till a Bass Islands Bedrock Density (lb/ft 3) Dry density 139 + 4% 124 + 2% 150 + 10% Wet density 144 + 5% 139 + 2% Submerged density 90 + 3% 77 + 2% 110 + 10% Wave velocities (ft/sec) Compression wave 2500 + 15%

7700 + 7% 13000 + 10%

Shear wave 900 + 25% 2200 + 15%

7600 + 15%

Poisson's Ratio Static or dynamic 0.4 + 10% 0.45 + 10%

0.24 + 10%

Static modulus of elasticity1.2 x 10 6 + 25% (lb/ft 2) 4.0 x 10 5 + 30% 120 x 10 6 + 50% Dynamic modulus of elasticity (lb/ft 2) Single 1.0% 1.2 x 10 5 + 50% Amplitude shear 0.01% 4.0 x 10 6 +/- 30% 4 x 10 5 +/- 50% 180 x 10 6 +/- 50% Strain 0.01% 13 x 10 5 +/- 50% Static modulus of rigidity4.0 x 10 5 + 30% (lb/ft 2) 1.4 x 10 5 + 30% 48 x 10 6 + 50% Dynamic modulus of rigidity (lb/ft 2) Single 1.0% 0.7 x 10 5 + 50% Amplitude shear 0.1% 1.4 x 10 6 + 30% 2.5 x 10 5 + 50% 72 x 10 6 + 50% Strain 0.01% 7.5 x 10 5 + 50% Damping values (percent of critical damping)

Single 1.0 19.0 Amplitude shear 0.1 7 to 10 17.0 1 Strain 0.01 9.0 Modulus of subgrade reaction1.0 x 10 6 + 25% (lb/ft 3) 6.5 x 10 5 + 50%

a Values reported were determined specifically for in situ conditions. However, the glacial till, compacted to at least 95 percent of maximum dry density, is expected to exhibit static and dynamic properties that fall within the ranges of variation reported in this table.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-11 I. MODIFIED MERCALLI INTENSITY (DAMAGE) SCALE OF 1931 (Abridged)

Not felt except by a very few under especially favorable circumstances (I, Rossi

-Forel Scale)

II. Felt only by a few persons at rest, especially on upper floors of buildings. Delicately suspended objects may swing (I to II, Rossi

-Forel Scale)

III. Felt quite noticeably indoors, especially on upper floors of buildings, but many people do not recognize it as an earthquake. Standing motorcars may rock slightly. Vibration like passing of truck. Duration estimated (III, Rossi-Forel Scale)

IV. During the day felt indoors by many, outdoors by few. At night some awakened. Dishes, windows, doors disturbed; walls make creaking sound. Sensation like heavy truck striking building. Standing motorcars rocked noticeably (IV to V, Rossi-Forel Scale)

V. Felt by nearly everyone, many awakened. Some dishes, windows, etc., broken; a few instances of cracked plaster; unstable objects overturned.

Disturbances of trees, poles, and other tall objects sometimes noticed. Pendulum clocks may stop (V to VI, Rossi-Forel Scale)

VI. Felt by all, many frightened and run outdoors. Some heavy furniture moved; a few instances of fallen plaster or damaged chimneys. Damage slight (VI to VII, Rossi

-Forel Scale)

VII. Everybody runs outdoors. Damage negligible in buildings of good design and construction; slight to moderate in well-built ordinary structures; considerable in poorly built or badly designed structures; some chimneys broken. Noticed by persons driving motorcars (VII, Rossi

-Forel Scale)

VIII. Damage slight in specially designed structures; considerable in ordinary substantial buildings, with partial collapse; great in poorly built structures. Panel walls thrown out of frame structures. Fall of chimneys, factory stacks, columns, monuments, walls. Heavy furniture overturned. Sand and mud ejected in small amounts. Changes in well water. Persons driving motorcars disturbed (VII+ to IX-, Rossi-Forel Scale)

IX. Damage considerable in specially designed structures; well-designed frame structures thrown out of plumb; great in substantial buildings, with partial collapse. Buildings shifted off foundations.

Ground cracked conspicuously. Underground pipes broken (IX+, Rossi-Forel Scale)

X. Some well-built wooden structures destroyed; most masonry and frame structures destroyed with foundations; ground badly cracked. Rails bent. Landslides considerable from river banks and steep slopes. Shifted sand and mud. Water splashed (slopped) over banks (X, Rossi-Forel Scale)

XI. Few, if any (masonry) structures remain standing. Bridges destroyed. Broad fissures in ground. Underground pipelines completely out of service. Earth slumps and land slips in soft ground. Rails bent greatly XII. Damage total. Waves seen on ground surface. Lines of sight and level distorted. Objects thrown upward into the air

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-12 DISTANT EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS (200 OR MORE MILES FROM THE SITE) (1800-1986) Date Maximum Time Intensity North Loc ation West Latitude Affected Area (squareLongitude Approx. Distance From Site miles) Estimated Intensity (miles) 1811 Dec 16 at Site 0 200 XII New Madrid, Missouri 36.6 89.6 2,000,000 530 III - IV 1812 Jan 23

- XII New Madrid, Missouri 36.6 89.6 2,000,000 530 III - IV 1812 Feb 7

- XII New Madrid, Missouri 36.6 89.6 2,000,000 530 III - IV 1870 Oct 20 1125 IX Montreal-Quebec, Canada 47.4 70.5 1,000,000 730 IV 1886 Aug 31 2159 X Charleston, South Carolina 32.9 80.0 2,000,000 650 IV 1895 Oct 31 0 508 VIII Charleston, Missouri 37.0 89.4 1,000,000 460 III 1905 Mar 13 1030 V Menominee 45.0 87.7 Local 300 - 1909 Jan 22 2115 V Houghton, Michigan 47.2 88.6 Local 435 0 1909 May 26 0 842 VII Beloit, Wisconsin 42.5 89.0 500,000 290 0 1909 Sep 27 0 345 VII Indiana 39.0 87.7 30,000 310 0 1925 Feb 28 0 919 IX St. Lawrence River 47.6 7 0.1 1,000,000 780 II 1926 Nov 5 0 953 VII Southeast Ohio 39.1 82.1 350 205 0 1929 Aug 12 0 625 IX Attica, New York 42.9 78.3 100,000 270 II 1935 Nov 1 0 104 VI Timiskaming, Ontario 46.8 79.1 1,000,000 340 III - IV 1944 Sep 5 0039 VIII Cornwall-Massena 44.9 74.5 175,000 480 II 1963 Feb 27 0 600 IV Grimsby, Ontario 43.2 79.5 - 220 0 1968 Nov 9 1203 VIII Southeast Illinois 38.5 88.0 1,000,000 350 II 1975 Feb 16 2321 V Near Wellston, Ohio 39.0 82.4 Local 215 0 1980 Jul 27 1852 VII Sharpsburg, Kentucky 37.8 83.7 260,000 300 II 1984 Jul 6 1724 V Near Sudbury, Ontario 46.5 81.2 Local 350 0 1984 Jul 28 2339 V Near Clay City, Indiana 39.2 87.1 Local 285 0 1984 Aug 29 0 650 V Near Clay City, Indiana 39.4 87.2 Local 285 0 1985 Sep 9 2206 V Near Edgebrook, Illinois 41.9 88.0 Local 250 0 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-13 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS WITHIN 200 MILES OF THE SITE a (1776-1986) Date MaximumTime Intensity NorthLocation West Latitude Affected Area (squareLongitude Approx. Distance From Site miles) Estimated Intensity (miles) 1776 Summer at Site 0800 VI Near Muskingum River

- - - 170 - 1833 Feb 4

- VI Near Kalamazoo, Michigan 42.3 85.6 - 125 - 1857 Mar 1

- V Near Eastlake, Ohio 41.7 81.2 - 110 - 1872 Feb 6 0800 V Wenona, Michigan 43.5 83.5 Local 110 0 1875 Jun 18 0743 VII Urbana and Sidney, Ohio 40.2 84.0 40,000 130 - 1877 Aug 17 1050 V SE Michigan near Detroit 42.3 83.3 200 25 0 1882 Feb 9 1500 V Swandors and Dodkins near Anna, Ohio 40.5 84.0 Local 110 0 1883 Feb 4 0500 VI Indiana and Michigan, felt at Kalamazoo 42.3 85.6 8,000 125 - 1884 Sep 19 1414 VI Near Lima, Ohio 40.7 84.1 125,000 95 IV 1900 Apr 9 1400 VI Near Brunswick, Ohio 41.4 81.8 - 95 III 1901 May 17 0100 VI Southeast Ohio 39.3 82.5 7,000 190 0 1902 Jun 14 0700 V Near Dover, Ohio 40.3 81.4 - 150 0 1906 Apr 23 0712 V Near Ada, Ohio 40.7 83.6 - 90 II 1906 Jun 27 1610 V Fairport, Ohio 41.4 81.6 400 95 0 1925 Mar 27 2306 V Southwestern Ohio

- - - 170 - 1926 Oct 28 0240 III East Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 0 0500 IV Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 0 1927 Oct 29

- V Near Alliance, Ohio 40.9 81.2 - 125 - 1928 Sep 9 1500 V Lorain and Cleveland, Ohio 41.5 82.0 1,500 70 0 1929 Mar 8 0406 V Bellefontaine, Ohio 40.4 84.2 5,000 130 0 1930 Sep 20 1440 VI Anna, Ohio 40.3 84.3 - 125 0 1930 Sep 30 1440 VII Anna, Ohio 40.3 84.3 - 130 - 1930 Nov 20

- III Near Brighton, Michigan 42.6 83.4 - 45 II 1931 Jun 10 0330 V Malinta, Ohio 41.6 84.0 1931 Sep 20 1805 VII Anna, Sidney, Houston, Ohio 40.2 84.3 40,000 130 0 1932 Jan 22

- V Near Akron, Ohio 41.1 81.5 - 110 0 1937 Mar 2 0948 VII Anna, Sidney, Ohio 40.7 84.0 90,000 110 III FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-13 EARTHQUAKE EPICENTERS WITHIN 200 MILES OF THE SITE a (1776-1986) Date MaximumTime Intensity NorthLocation West Latitude Affected Area (squareLongitude Approx. Distance From Site miles) Estimated Intensity (miles) 1937 Mar 3 at Site 0450 V Anna, Sidney, Ohio 40.5 84.0 Local 110 0 1937 Mar 9 2445 VIII Anna, Sidney, Ohio 40.6 84.0 150,000 100 IV 1938 Mar 13 1040 II Detroit River 42.3 83.1 Local 25 II 1943 Mar 9 2226 V Lake Erie 42.2 80.9 40,000 120 IV 1947 Aug 9 2047 VI South-Central Michigan 42.0 85.0 50,000 90 III 1948 Jan 18 Night III Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 - 1952 Jun 20 0438 VI Zanesville, Ohio 39.8 82.2 10,000 170 0 1953 Jun 12 2345 IV Toledo, Ohio 41.6 83.6 Local 30 0 1955 May 26 1309 V Cleveland, Ohio 41.5 81.7 Local 85 0 1955 Jun 28 2016 V Cleveland, Ohio 41.5 81.7 Local 85 0 1956 Jan 27 1103 V West-Central Ohio 40.5 84.0 Local 110 0 1957 Jun 29 0525 V Southeast of London, Ontario 42.9 81.2 Local 120 0 1958 May 1 1647 V Cleveland, Ohio 41.3 81.4 Local 110 0 1961 Feb 22 0344 V Findlay, Ohio 41.2 83.4 Local 55 0 1967 Apr 7 2340 V Columbus, Ohio 39.6 82.5 3,000 165 0 1968 Oct 31 V Attica, Michigan 43.0 83.0 Local 80 II 1976 Feb 2 2114 III Colechester, Ontario 42.0 82.7 Local 25 II 1977 Jun 17 1539 VI Near Celina, Ohio 40.7 84.6 200 110 II 1980 Aug 20 0934 IV Near Colechester, Ontario 41.9 83.0 Local 15 III 1986 Jan 31 1646 VI Near Perry, Ohio 41.7 81.2 - 110 IV 1986 Jul 12 0819 V St. Mary's Ohio 40.6 84.4 Local 115 0 a. Earthquakes of Intensity V or greater only are tabulated beyond a distance of 50 miles from the site. All known shocks within 50 miles of the site are indicated.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-14 RESULTS OF PLATE LOAD TESTS ON FILL AND TILL Average Movement of Plate For a Contact Stress of 10,000 lb/ft Material Plate Diameter (in.)

Initial Load Cycle (in.)

Fill Average of Rebound Cycle (in.)

12 0.035 0.006 24 0.091 0.027 30 0.097 0.040 Till 12 0.050 0.040 24 0.092 0.049 30 0.101 0.052 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-15 Boring WATER PRESSURE TEST DATA Number Water PressureTest Section Depth (ft)

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

Period of Steady Flow (psi) Water Intake (minutes) Calculated Permeability (gpm) (ft/yr) 124 - 134 40 15 16.0 845 133 - 143 40 20 15.0 790 142 - 152 40 20 9.5 500 210 14 - 24 15 15 15.8 2220 23 - 33 30 20 15.5 1090 45 - 55 50 20 11.5 486 54 - 64 50 20 16.5 697 63 - 73 50 15 21.0 888 72 - 82 50 20 21.0 888 81 - 91 50 20 20.0 845 90 - 100 50 20 15.0 634 Note: Permeabilities were calculated using the method outlined in Reference 4; i.e., using the formula K = Cp (Q/H) where K = permeability in feet per year Cp = a constant dependent on hole size Q = flow in gallons per minute H = applied pressure in feet of water units

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-16 Boring CHEMICAL ANALYSES OF GROUND WATER Number Depth (ft)

Formation a pH Chloride (C1

-, ppm) Sulfate (SO 4--, ppm) 201 30.0 BI 7.65 33 1685 201 85.0 BI 7.60 34 1747 204 18.0 BI 8.00 43 1661 205 17.4 BI 8.10 45 1865 205 27.4 BI 8.00 43 1733 205 11 7.0 S 7.30 424 1790 207 19.8 BI 7.40 356 1776 207 20.0 BI 7.70 51 1747 208 27.2 BI 7.90 1164 1168 208 110.0 S 8.10 183 1282 209 92.0-102.0 BI-S 8.10 102 1771 209 97.0-107.0 BI-S 8.05 156 1738 209 102.0-112.0 S 8.00 91 1738 209 132.0-142.0 S 7.80 116 1757 209 147.0-152.0 S 8.10 122 1800 209 151+ S 8.10 115 1757 209 210+ S 7.90 162 1771 210 20.4-30.5 BI 7.60 603 1738 210 30.4-40.5 BI 7.65 547 1728 210 40.4-50.5 BI 8.00 1145 1709 210 50.4-60.5 BI 8.00 362 1742 210 60.4-70.5 BI 8.10 198 1709 210 70.4-80.5 BI 7.70 65 1752 210 80.4-90.5 BI-S 8.00 156 1699 210 90.4-100.0 S 7.50 21 1718 210 67+ BI 7.70 48 1747 a BI = Bass Islands Group. S = Salina Group

.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-17 LATERAL PRESSURE VALUES a Crushed- Lateral Pressure (lb/ft 2/ft) Bass IslandsRock Fill Static-rigid wall above water Bedrock 96 b 0 Static-rigid wall submerged 122b 63 Static-cantilever wall above water 32b 0 Static-cantilever wall submerged 80b 63 Dynamic-rigid wall above water c- Dynamic-rigid wall below water c -

a During the course of safety evaluation review, the NRC requested additional information regarding the technique for the dynamic lateral pressure computation. This information was provided to the NRC as Reference 32.

b A factor of safety of 1.5 is applied to these values when the foundation walls are required to perform safety

-related functions. c See Figures 3.8

-48 and 3.8

-49.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-18 FOUNDATION DATA Approximate PlanFoundation Dimensions (ft x ft)

Elevations aApproximate Uniform Applied Foundation (ft) Category I Load (lb/ft 2) Reactor building 120 x 155 536 7500 Auxiliary building 80 x 155 536 4000 to 5000 RHR Complex 120 x 310 547 4000 to 5000 Other structures Turbine house 210 x 375 558 5000 Radwaste building 100 x 190 552 2500 a USGS datum

.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 3 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-19 Hole Number a CURTAIN WALL GROUTING

SUMMARY

OF GROUT TAKES Grout Take in Cubic Feet b Observed Horizontal Distance of Grout Travel (ft)

Mix A c Mix B d Mix C e Total 1 3 10 13 12 2 1.5 10.5 12 3 6 3 9 12 4 3 3 5 9 9 6 6 6 7 18 18 8 6 6 9 6 6 10 6 9 15 11 9 9 12 4.5 4.5 13 10.5 10.5 14 1.5 1.5 15 10.5 6 16.5 16 3 3 17 18 3 21 36 18 3 3 19 6 4.5 10.5 24 20 3 3 6 21 3 1.5 4.5 22 12 18 30 12 23 6 10.5 16.5 24 24 10.5 6 16.5 12 25 9 12 21 12 26 9 3 12 27 12 24 36 24 28 9 9 18 12 29 9 18 10 37 30 6 15 7.5 28.5 24 31 9 27 10 46 12 32 12 3 15 12 33 9 12 21 12 34 6 12 18 12 35 10.5 21 5 36.5 12 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 2 of 3 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-19 Hole Number a CURTAIN WALL GROUTING

SUMMARY

OF GROUT TAKES Grout Take in Cubic Feet b Observed Horizontal Distance of Grout Travel (ft)

Mix A c Mix B d Mix C e Total 36 1.5 1.5 12 37 18 27 45 12 38 1.5 1.5 39 21 44 65 24 40 9 24 26 59 24 41 12 18 30 12 42 12 21 33 12 43 7.5 3 10.5 44 1.5 1.5 45 12 9 21 46 12 21 33 12 47 12 3 15 24 48 12 10.5 22.5 12 49 12 12 24 50 12 18 30 51 12 30 5 47 12 52 9 10.5 19.5 24 53 6 12 18 12 54 12 27 39 12 55 7.5 3 10.5 56 1.5 1.5 57 12 15 27 12 58 9 12 21 12 59 1.5 1.5 60 10.5 18 28.5 12 61 7.5 18 5 30.5 62 7.5 15 22.5 63 9 18 27 24 64 9 21 30 24 65 21 46 67 24 66 15 30 15 60 36 67 24 6 30 12 68 15 15 69 22.5 3 25.5 70 19.5 19.5 FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 3 of 3 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-19 Hole Number a CURTAIN WALL GROUTING

SUMMARY

OF GROUT TAKES Grout Take in Cubic Feet b Observed Horizontal Distance of Grout Travel (ft)

Mix A c Mix B d Mix C e Total 71 1.5 1.5 12 72 15 12 10 37 12 73 18 7.5 25.5 24 74 15 9 24 12 75 Abandoned

- Driller Lost Drill Bit in Hole 75A 9 12 21 24 76 12 12 76A 6 6 77 1.5 1.5 78 7.5 7.5 12 79 21 21 24 80 15 15 a All grout holes were brought to refusal with a grout pressure ranging from 8 psi to 20 psi with the exception of holes 2, 3, and 68 in which there was a heavy grout return through the surface of the rock which was highly fractured above packer.

b An additional 72

-1/2 ft 3 of grout was used for filling inside the casing subsequent to pressure grouting.

c Mix A - Water:cement + flyash ratio of 2:1 or greater.

d Mix B - Water:cement + flyash ratio of 1.5:1 or less e Mix C - Water:cement + flyash ratio of 1:1 or less plus a water:sand ratio of 1:1.

FERMI 2 UFSAR Page 1 of 1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2.5-20 (holes drilled 10 ft into rock)

SUMMARY

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

FERMI 2 UFSAR

APPENDIX 2A ANNUAL AVERAGE /Q VALUES (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

(DEPLETED AND DECAYED)

AND RELATIVE DEPOSITION D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING RADWASTE BUILDING TURBINE BUILDING BY DISTANCE AND SECTOR

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-1 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-1 ANNUAL AVERAGE Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 1.31E-06 4.16E-07 2.68E-07 2.03E-07 1.37E-07 NE 1.06E-06 3.50E-07 2.28E-07 1.75E-07 1.21E-07 ENE 1.02E-06 3.49E-07 2.30E-07 1.78E-07 1.24E-07 E 7.40E-07 2.54E-07 1.77E-07 1.39E-07 9.88E-08 ESE 7.18E-07 2.45E-07 1.67E-07 1.30E-07 9.13E-08 SE 6.75E-07 2.28E-07 1.54E-07 1.19E-07 8.29E-08 SSE 5.11E-07 1.67E-07 1.14E-07 8.80E-08 6.19E-08 S 4.86E-07 1.52E-07 1.02E-07 7.88E-08 5.45E-08 SSW 3.76E-07 1.27E-07 8.70E-08 6.78E-0 8 4.78E-08 SW 3.96E-07 1.48E-07 1.05E-07 8.24E-08 5.78E-08 WSW 5.41E-07 1.98E-07 1.35E-07 1.05E-07 7.25E-08 W 4.76E-07 1.64E-07 1.08E-07 8.17E-08 5.49E-08 WNW 6.68E-07 2.15E-07 1.39E-07 1.04E-07 6.97E-08 NW 7.03E-07 2.25E-07 1.51E-07 1.17E-07 8.12E-08 NNW 7.47E-07 2.31E-07 1.52E-07 1.16E-07 8.00E-08 N 7.84E-07 2.52E-07 1.66E-07 1.28E-07 8.86E-06 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-2 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-1 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.04E-07 8.27E-08 6.8 4E-08 5.80E-08 5.01E-08 NE 9.30E-08 7.51E-08 6.26E-08 5.34E-08 4.63E-03 ENE 9.53E-08 7.69E-08 6.41E-08 5.47E-08 4.75E-08 E 7.65E-08 6.20E-08 5.1 8 E-08 4.43E-08 3.8 5E-08 ESE 7.08E-08 5.76E-08 4.84E-08 4.15E-08 3.63E-08 SE 6.38E-08 5.16E-08 4.32E-08 3.69E-08 3.22E-08 SSE 4.81E-08 3.92E-08 3.30E-08 2.84E-08 2.49E-08 S 4.20E-08 3.42E-08 2.87E-08 2.47E-08 2.16E-08 SSW 3.70E-08 3.01E-08 2.52E-08 2.16E-08 1.8 8E-08 SW 4.40E-08 3.50E-08 2.88E-08 2.43E-08 2.09E-08 WSW 5.47E-08 4.34E-08 3.56E-08 3.00E-08 2.57E-08 W 4.09E-08 3.23E-08 2.64E-08 2.22E-08 1.91E-08 WNW 5.20E-08 4.12E-08 3.38E-08 2.85E-08 2.45E-08 NW 6.20E-08 4.96E-08 4.10E-08 3.47E-08 2.99E-08 NNW 6.11E-08 4.92E-08 4.10E-08 3.49E-08 3.03E-08 N 6.78E-08 5.45E-08 4.53E-08 3.86E-08 3.34E-08 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-3 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-1 ANNUAL BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 4.39E-08 3.90E-08 3.49E-08 3.16E-08 2.88E-08 NE 4.08E-08 3.63E-08 3.27E-08 2.96E-08 2.70E-08 ENE 4.18E-08 3.72E-08 3.35E-08 3.04E-08 2.77E-08 E 3.40E-08 3.03E-08 2.73E-08 2.48E-08 2.26E-08 ESE 3.21E-08 2.87E-08 2.60E-08 2.37E-08 2.17E-08 SE 2.85E-08 2.55E-08 2.30E-08 2.09E-08 1.92E-08 SSE 2.21E-08 1.98E-08 1.80E-08 1.64E-08 1.51E-08 S 1.92E-08 1.72E-08 1.56E-08 1.42E-08 1.31E-08 SSW 1.66E-08 1.49E-08 1.34E-08 1.22E-08 1.12E-08 SW 1.82 E-08 1.61E-08 1.43E-08 1.29E-08 1.17E-08 WSW 2.24E-08 1.97E-08 1.76E-08 1.58E-08 1.43E-08 W 1.66E-08 1.47E-08 1.31E-08 1.1 8 E-08 1.07E-08 WNW 2.14E-08 1.90E-08 1.70E-08 1.53E-08 1.39E-08 NW 2.62E-08 2.32E-08 2.07E-08 1.87E-08 1.70E-08 NNW 2.66E-08 2.37E-08 2.13E-08 1.93E-08 1.77E-08 N 2.94E-08 2.61E-08 2.34E-08 2.12E-08 1.93E-08 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-4 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-1 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 2.63E-08 2.43E-08 2.25E-08 2.09E-08 1.95E-08 NE 2.48E-08 2.29E-08 2.12E-08 1.97E-08 1.84E-08 ENE 2.54E-08 2.35E-08 2.18E-08 2.03E-08 1.90E-08 E 2.08E-08 1.92E-08 1.79E-08 1.66E-08 1.56E-08 ESE 2.00E-08 1.86E-08 1.73E-08 1.62E-08 1.52E-08 SE 1.77E-08 1.64E-08 1.52E-08 1.42E-08 1.34E-08 SSE 1.39E-08 1.29E-08 1.20E-08 1.13E-08 1.06E-08 S 1.21E-08 1.12E-08 1.05E-08 9.81E-09 9.23E-09 SSW 1.03E-08 9.52E-09 8.86E-09 8.27E-09 7.75E-09 SW 1.06E-08 9.77E-09 9.01E-09 8.34E-09 7.76E-09 WSW 1.30E-08 1.19E-08 1.10E-08 1.02E-08 9.44E-09 W 9.74E-09 8.94E-09 8.25E-09 7.65E-09 7.12E-09 WNW 1.27E-08 1.17E-08 1.08E-08 1.01E-08 9.37E-09 NW 1.55E-08 1.43E-08 1.32E-08 1.22E-08 1.14E-08 NNW 1.62E-08 1.50E-08 1.39E-08 1.29E-08 1.21E-08 N 1.77E-08 1.63E-08 1.51E-08 1.41E-08 1.31E-08 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-5 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-1 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 1.82E-08 1.71E-08 1.03E-08 7.13E-09 5.33E-09 NE 1.73E-08 1.62E-08 9.85E-09 6.84E-09 5.13E-09 ENE 1.78E-08 1.67E-08 1.02E-08 7.14E-09 5.37E-09 E 1.46E-08 1.38E-08 8.46E-09 5.93E-09 4.48E-09 ESE 1.43E-08 1.35E-08 8.50E-09 6.09E-09 4.67E-09 SE 1.26E-08 1.19E-08 7.46E-09 5.32E-09 4.07E-09 SSE 1.00E-08 9.45E-09 6.03E-09 4.34E-09 3.35E-09 S 8.70E-09 8.23E-09 5.26E-09 3.79E-09 2.93E-09 SSW 7.28E-09 6.86E-09 4.27E-09 3.02E-09 2.30E-09 SW 7.24E-09 6.78E-09 4.00E-09 2.74E-09 2.03E-09 WSW 8.80E-09 8.23E-09 4.31E-09 3.25E-09 2.39E-09 W 6.65E-09 6.23E-09 3.69E-09 2.53E-09 1.88E-09 WNW 8.77E-09 8.23E-09 4.95E-09 3.43E-09 2.57E-09 NW 1.06E-08 9.98E-09 5.96E-09 4.10E-09 3.06E-09 NNW 1.13E-08 1.07E-08 6.53E-09 4.57E-09 3.44E-09 N 1.23E-08 1.15E-08 6.98E-09 4.84E-09 3.62E-09 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-6 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-1 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 4.19E-09 3.42E-09 2.86E-09 2.44E-09 2.11E-09 NE 4.04E-09 3.30E-09 2.76E-09 2.36E-09 2.05E-09 ENE 4.24E-09 3.47E-09 2.91E-09 2.49E-09 2.16E-09 E 3.55E-09 2.91E-09 2.45E-09 2.10E-09 1.82E-09 ESE 3.75E-09 3.11E-09 2.64E-09 2.27E-09 1.99E-09 SE 3.26E-09 2.70E-09 2.28E-09 1.97E-09 1.72E-09 SSE 2.70E-09 2.24E-09 1.90E-09 1.65E-09 1.44E-09 S 2.36E-09 1.96E-09 1.66E-09 1.44E-09 1.26E-09 SSW 1.83E-09 1.51E-09 1.27E-09 1.09E-09 9.53E-10 SW 1.59E-09 1.29E-09 1.07E-09 9.13E-10 7.90E-10 WSW 1.86E-09 1.50E-09 1.24E-09 1.05E-09 9.06E-10 W 1.47E-09 1.19E-09 9.92E-10 8.44E-10 7.29E-10 WNW 2.02E-09 1.65E-09 1.38E-09 1.1 8 E-09 1.03E-09 NW 2.40E-09 1.95E-09 1.63E-09 1.39E-09 1.20E-09 NNW 2.73E-09 2.23E-09 1.87E-09 1.60E-09 1.40E-09 N 2.85E-09 2.33E-09 1.95E-09 1.66E-09 1.44E-09 Source: Containment Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-7 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-2 RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 3.04E-06 1.05E-06 6.17E-07 4.40E-07 2.73E-07 NE 2.45E-06 8.69E-07 5.21E-07 3.76E-07 2.38E-07 ENE 2.41E-06 8.70E-07 5.21E-07 3.76E-07 2.38E-07 E 1.70E-06 6.21E-07 3.94E-07 2.89E-07 1.36E-07 ESE 1.73E-06 6.12E-07 3.82E-07 2.79E-07 1.80E-07 SE 1.55E-06 5.45E-07 3.39E-07 2.47E-07 1.58E-07 SSE 1.22E-06 4.15E-07 2.61E-07 1.91E-07 1.24E-07 S 1.10E-06 3.71E-07 2.33E-07 1.69E-07 1.09E-07 SSW 8.68E-07 3.13E-07 1.94E-07 1.42E-07 9.10E-08 SW 8.93E-07 3.51E-07 2.20E-07 1.60E-07 1.01E-07 WSW 1.12E-06 4.24E-07 2.65E-07 1.92E-07 1.21E-07 W 1.06E-06 3.72E-07 2.25E-07 1.60E-07 9.87E-08 WNW 1.58E-06 5.26E-07 3.18E-07 2.26E-07 1.40E-07 NW 1.50E-06 5.19E-07 3.30E-07 2.39E-07 1.52E-07 NNW 1.68E-06 5.63E-07 3.49E-07 2.51E-07 1.59E-07 N 1.63E-06 5.73E-07 3.58E-07 2.60E-07 1.65E-07 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-8 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-2 RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.93E-07 1.47E-07 1.17E-07 9.62E-08 8.12E-08 NE 1.70E-07 1.31E-07 1.05E-07 8.68E-08 7.35E-08 ENE 1.70E-07 1.31E-07 1.05E-07 8.72E-08 7.41E-08 E 1.34E-07 1.04E-07 8.38E-08 6.97E-08 5.94E-08 ESE 1.30E-07 1.01E-07 8.21E-08 6.86E-08 5.87E-08 SE 1.14E-07 8.86E-08 7.18E-08 5.99E-08 5.12E-08 SSE 9.02E-08 7.02E-08 5.71E-08 4.79E-08 4.11E-08 S 7.93E-08 6.17E-08 5.02E-08 4.21E-08 3.61E-08 SSW 6.59E-08 5.11E-08 4.13E-08 3.45E-08 2.94E-08 SW 7.12E-08 5.41E-08 4.30E-08 3.53E-08 2.97E-08 WSW 8.55E-08 6.49E-08 5.16E-08 4.24E-08 3.56E-08 W 6.93E-08 5.25E-08 4.16E-08 3.42E-08 2.87E-08 WNW 9.90E-08 7.50E-08 5.96E-08 4.90E-08 4.13E-08 NW 1.08E-07 8.25E-08 6.58E-08 5.42E-08 4.57E-08 NNW 1.14E-07 8.78E-08 7.06E-08 5.85E-08 4.96E-08 N 1.18E-07 9.05E-08 7.26E-08 6.01E-08 5.09E-08 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-9 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-2 RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 6.99E-08 6.10E-08 5.39E-08 4.82E-08 4.34E-08 NE 6.35E-08 5.56E-08 4.93E-08 4.41E-08 3.98E-08 ENE 6.41E-08 5.62E-08 4.99E-08 4.47E-08 4.04E-08 E 5.15E-08 4.53E-08 4.03E-03 3.62E-08 3.27E-08 ESE 5.11E-08 4.51E-08 4.03E-08 3.63E-08 3.30E-08 SE 4.46E-08 3.93E-08 3.51E-08 3.16E-08 2.87E-08 SSE 3.58E-08 3.17E-08 2.8 4E-08 2.56E-08 2.33E-08 S 3.15E-08 2.79E-08 2.50E-08 2.26E-08 2.05E-08 SSW 2.56E-08 2.25E-08 2.01E-08 1.81E-08 1.64E-08 SW 2.55E-08 2.22E-08 1.96E-08 1.74E-08 1.57E-08 WSW 3.05E-08 2.66E-08 2.34E-08 2.08E-08 1.87E-08 W 2.46E-08 2.15E-08 1.89E-08 1.69E-08 1.52E-08 WNW 3.54E-08 3.09E-08 2.73E-08 2.43E-08 2.19E-08 NW 3.93E-08 3.43E-08 3.03E-08 2.70E-08 2.43E-08 NNW 4.29E-08 3.76E-08 3.34E-08 2.99E-08 2.70E-08 N 4.39E-08 3.85E-08 3.41E-08 3.05E-08 2.75E-08 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-10 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-2 RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 3.94E-08 3.59E-08 3.30E-08 3.05E-08 2.82E-08 NE 3.62E-08 3.31E-08 3.04E-08 2.81E-08 2.61E-08 ENE 3.68E-08 3.37E-08 3.11E-08 2.87E-08 2.67E-08 E 2.99E-08 2.74E-08 2.53E-08 2.34E-08 2.18E-08 ESE 3.02E-08 2.78E-08 2.57E-08 2.39E-08 2.23E-08 SE 2.63E-08 2.42E-08 2.24E-08 2.08E-08 1.94E-08 SSE 2.14E-08 1.97E-08 1.83E-08 1.70E-08 1.59E-08 S 1.88E-08 1.74E-08 1.61E-08 1.50E-08 1.40E-08 SSW 1.50E-08 1.38E-08 1.27E-08 1.18E-08 1.10E-08 SW 1.42E-08 1.29E-08 1.19E-08 1.09E-08 1.01E-08 WSW 1.69E-08 1.54E-08 1.41E-08 1.30E-08 1.20E-08 W 1.37E-08 1.25E-08 1.15E-08 1.06E-08 9.80E-09 WNW 1.98E-08 1.81E-08 1.66E-08 1.53E-08 1.42E-08 NW 2.21E-08 2.01E-08 1.85E-08 1.71E-08 1.58E-08 NNW 2.46E-08 2.25E-08 2.07E-08 1.92E-08 1.7 8 E-08 N 2.50E-08 2.29E-08 2.11E-08 1.95E-08 1.81E-08 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-11 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-2 RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 2.63E-08 2.46E-08 1.42E-08 9.63E-09 7.09E-09 NE 2.43E-08 2.28E-08 1.33E-08 9.03E-09 6.67E-09 ENE 2.49E-08 2.33E-08 1.37E-08 9.3 8 E-09 6.95E-0 9 E 2.03E-08 1.90E-08 1.13E-08 7.75E-09 5.76E-09 ESE 2.09E-08 1.96E-08 1.20E-08 8.35E-09 6.29E-09 SE 1.82E-08 1.71E-08 1.03E-08 7.20E-0 9 5.41E-09 SSE 1.49E-08 1.40E-08 8.59E-09 6.02E-09 4.55E-09 S 1.31E-08 1.23E-08 7.56E-09 5.30E-09 4.00E-09 SSW 1.03E-08 9.64E-09 5.79E-09 4.00E-09 2.99E-09 SW 9.42E-09 8.79E-09 5.06E-09 3.41E-09 2.50E-09 WSW 1.11E-08 1.04E-08 5.90E-09 3.94E-09 2.87E-09 W 9.11E-09 8.50E-09 4.88E-09 3.28E-09 2.40E-09 WNW 1.32E-08 1.24E-08 7.16E-09 4.8 4E-09 3.57E-09 NW 1.47E-08 1.37E-08 7.95E-09 5.37E-09 3.95E-09 NNW 1.66E-08 1.56E-08 9.15E-09 6.24E-09 4.63E-09 N 1.68E-08 1.57E-08 9.20E-09 6.25E-09 4.62E-09 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-12 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-2 RADWASTE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 5.51E-09 4.45E-09 3.70E-09 3.14E-09 2.71E-09 NE 5.19E-09 4.20E-09 3.49E-09 2.97E-09 2.56E-09 ENE 5.43E-09 4.40E-09 3.66E-09 3.11 E-09 2.69 E-09 E 4.51E-09 3.66E-09 3.06E-09 2.60E-09 2.25E-09 ESE 4.97E-09 4.07E-09 3.42E-09 2.92E-09 2.54E-09 SE 4.27E-09 3.49E-09 2.92E-09 2.50E-09 2.17E-09 SSE 3.61E-09 2.96E-09 2.48E-09 2.13E-09 1.85E-09 S 3.17E-09 2.59E-09 2.1 8 E-09 1.86E-09 1.62E-09 SSW 2.35E-09 1.92E-09 1.60E-09 1.37E-09 1.19E-09 SW 1.94E-09 1.57E-09 1.30E-09 1.10E-09 9.48E-10 WSW 2.21E-09 1.77E-09 1.46E-09 1.24E-09 1.06E-09 W 1.86E-09 1.50E-09 1.24E-09 1.05E-09 9.04E-10 WNW 2.77E-09 2.24E-09 1.86E-09 1.58E-09 1.36E-09 NW 3.07E-09 2.48E-09 2.05E-09 1.74E-09 1.50E-09 NNW 3.61E-09 2.93E-09 2.44E-09 2.07E-09 1.79E-09 N 3.60E-09 2.91E-09 2.42E-09 2.06E-09 1.78E-09 Source: Radwaste Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-13 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-3 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 6.10E-06 2.05E-06 1.07E-06 7.30E-07 4.25E-07 NE 5.27E-06 1.80E-06 9.37E-07 6.39E-07 3.75E-07 ENE 5.75E-06 1.97E-06 1.02E-06 6.91E-07 4.05E-07 E 4.81E-06 1.61E-06 8.43E-07 5.73E-07 3.37E-07 ESE 4.36E-06 1.43E-06 7.56E-07 5.15E-07 3.07E-07 SE 4.32E-06 1.40E-06 7.39E-07 5.02E-07 2.96E-07 SSE 3.16E-06 1.01E-06 5.38E-07 3.67E-07 2.19E-07 S 3.33E-06 1.04E-06 5.63E-07 3.8 4E-07 2.29E-07 SSW 2.38E-06 7.8 1E-07 4.13E-07 2.82E-07 1.67E-07 SW 2.33E-06 8.12E-07 4.08E-07 2.74E-07 1.57E-07 WSW 2.88E-06 9.90E-07 4.98E-07 3.34E-07 1.92E-07 W 2.26E-06 7.42E-07 3.84E-07 2.59E-07 1.50E-07 WNW 3.27E-06 1.05E-06 5.51E-07 3.72E-07 2.17E-07 NW 3.94E-06 1.28E-06 6.62E-07 4.47E-07 2.60E-07 NNW 4.17E-06 1.35E-06 7.10E-07 4.81E-07 2.83E-07 N 3.97E-06 1.33E-06 6.92E-07 4.71E-07 2.75E-07 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-14 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-3 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 2.89E-07 2.14E-07 1.67E-07 1.36E-07 1.13E-07 NE 2.57E-07 1.91E-07 1.50E-07 1.22E-07 1.02E-07 ENE 2.76E-07 2.05E-07 1.61E-07 1.31E-07 1.09E-07 E 2.31E-07 1.72E-07 1.35E-07 1.10E-07 9.18E-08 ESE 2.12E-07 1.59E-07 1.26E-07 1.03E-07 8.69E-08 SE 2.04E-07 1.52E-07 1.20E-07 9.82E-08 8.24E-08 SSE 1.52E-07 1.15E-07 9.07E-0 8 7.45E-08 6.28E-08 S 1.58E-07 1.18E-07 9.34E-08 7.64E-08 6.42E-08 SSW 1.15E-07 8.60E-08 6.77E-08 5.53E-08 4.64E-08 SW 1.05E-07 7.74E-08 6.01E-08 4.85E-08 4.03E-08 WSW 1.29E-07 9.49E-08 7.37E-08 5.9 5 E-08 4.94E-08 W 1.02E-07 7.51E-08 5.86E-08 4.75E-08 3.95E-08 WNW 1.47E-07 1.09E-07 8.53E-08 6.91E-08 5.76E-08 NW 1.77E-07 1.31E-07 1.02E-07 8.29E-08 6.90E-08 NNW 1.93E-07 1.44E-07 1.13E-07 9.16E-08 7.65E-08 N 1.87E-07 1.39E-07 1.09E-07 8.82E-08 7.36E-08 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-15 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-3 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 9.62E-08 8.32E-08 7.30E-08 6.4 8 E-08 5.80E-08 NE 8.70E-08 7.54E-08 6.63E-08 5.90E-08 5.29E-08 ENE 9.33E-08 8.10E-08 7.12E-08 6.33E-08 5.68E-08 E 7.85E-08 6.81E-08 5.99E-08 5.33E-08 4.79E-08 ESE 7.46E-08 6.51E-08 5.75E-08 5.14E-08 4.63E-08 SE 7.06E-08 6.14E-08 5.42E-08 4.83E-08 4.35E-08 SSE 5.40E-08 4.72E-08 4.17E-08 3.73E-08 3.36E-08 S 5.50E-08 4.79E-08 4.23E-08 3.77E-08 3.39E-08 SSW 3.97E-08 3.46E-08 3.05E-08 2.71E-08 2.44E-08 SW 3.42E-08 2.95E-08 2.58E-08 2.29E-08 2.05E-08 WSW 4.19E-08 3.61E-0 8 3.16E-08 2.8 0E-08 2.50E-08 W 3.36E-08 2.91E-08 2.55E-08 2.26E-08 2.02E-08 WNW 4.90E-08 4.24E-08 3.72E-08 3.30E-08 2.95E-08 NW 5.87E-08 5.07E-08 4.45E-08 3.94E-08 3.53E-08 NNW 6.53E-08 5.66E-08 4.97E-08 4.42E-08 3.96E-08 N 6.27E-08 5.43E-08 4.77E-08 4.24E-08 3.80E-08 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-16 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-3 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 5.24E-08 4.76E-08 4.35E-08 4.00E-08 3.70E-08 NE 4.78E-08 4.35E-08 3.99E-08 3.67E-08 3.39E-08 ENE 5.13E-08 4.68E-08 4.28E-08 3.94E-08 3.65E-08 E 4.33E-08 3.95E-08 3.62E-08 3.33E-08 3.08E-08 ESE 4.20E-08 3.84E-08 3.53E-08 3.26E-08 3.03E-08 SE 3.94E-08 3.60E-0 8 3.30E-08 3.05 E-08 2.83E-08 SSE 3.06E-08 2.80E-08 2.57E-08 2.38E-08 2.21E-08 S 3.08E-08 2.81E-08 2.58E-08 2.38E-08 2.21E-08 SSW 2.21E-08 2.02E-08 1.85E-08 1.71E-08 1.5 8 E-08 SW 1.84E-08 1.67E-08 1.53E-08 1.40E-08 1.30E-08 WSW 2.25E-08 2.04E-08 1.86E-08 1.71E-08 1.57E-08 W 1.82E-08 1.65E-08 1.51E-08 1.39E-08 1.28E-08 WNW 2.67E-08 2.42E-08 2.22E-08 2.04E-08 1.88E-08 NW 3.18E-08 2.89E-08 2.64E-08 2.43E-08 2.24E-08 NNW 3.58E-08 3.26E-08 2.98E-08 2.75E-08 2.54E-08 N 3.43E-08 3.12E-08 2.85E-08 2.63E-08 2.43E-08 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-17 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-3 VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 3.43E-08 3.19E-08 1.31E-0 8 1.21E-08 8.86E-09 NE 3.15E-08 2.94E-08 1.6 8 E-08 1.13E-08 8.27E-09 ENE 3.39E-08 3.16E-08 1.8 1E-08 1.22E-08 8.94E-09 E 2.87E-08 2.67E-08 1.54E-08 1.04E-08 7.61E-09 ESE 2.82E-08 2.64E-08 1.55E-08 1.06E-08 7.90E-09 SE 2.63E-08 2.46E-08 1.43E-08 9.74E-09 7.21E-09 SSE 2.06E-08 1.93E-08 1.14E-08 7.81E-09 5.81E-09 S 2.06E-08 1.92E-08 1.12E-08 7.63E-09 5.65E-09 SSW 1.47E-08 1.37E-08 7.96E-09 5.39E-09 3.97E-09 SW 1.20E-08 1.12E-08 6.31E-09 4.21E-09 3.07E-09 WSW 1.46E-08 1.35E-08 7.58E-09 5.01E-09 3.63E-09 W 1.19E-08 1.11E-08 6.24E-09 4.15E-09 3.02E-09 WNW 1.75E-08 1.63E-08 9.23E-09 6.16E-09 4.50E-09 NW 2.08E-08 1.93E-08 1.09E-08 7.27E-09 5.30E-09 NNW 2.36E-08 2.20E-08 1.26E-08 8.42E-09 6.17E-09 N 2.25E-08 2.10E-08 1.20E-08 8.02E-09 5.87E-09 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-18 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-3 BUILDING (UNDECAYED AND UNDEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 6.85E-09 5.51E-09 4.56E-09 3.86E-09 3.32E-09 NE 6.40E-09 5.16E-09 4.28E-09 3.62E-09 3.12E-09 ENE 6.93E-09 5.59E-09 4.63E-09 3.93E-09 3.39E-09 E 5.91E-09 4.77E-09 3.96E-09 3.3 5 E-09 2.89E-09 ESE 6.19E-09 5.03E-09 4.20E-09 3.58E-09 3.10E-09 SE 5.63E-09 4.56E-09 3.80E-09 3.23E-09 2.79E-09 SSE 4.56E-09 3.71E-09 3.10E-09 2.64E-09 2.29E-09 S 4.41E-09 3.58E-09 2.98E-09 2.53E-09 2.19E-09 SSW 3.09E-09 2.50E-09 2.08E-09 1.77E-09 1.53E-09 SW 2.37E-09 1.90E-09 1.57E-09 1.33E-09 1.14E-09 WSW 2.78E-09 2.23E-09 1.83E-09 1.54E-09 1.32E-09 W 2.33E-09 1.87E-09 1.54E-09 1.30E-09 1.12E-09 WNW 3.48E-09 2.80E-09 2.32E-09 1.96E-09 1.69E-09 NW 4.08E-09 3.28E-09 2.71E-09 2.29E-09 1.97E-09 NNW 4.78E-09 3.85E-09 3.19E-09 2.70E-09 2.33E-09 N 4.55E-09 3.66E-09 3.03E-09 2.57E-09 2.21E-09 Source: Turbine Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-19 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-4 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 1.23E-06 3.81E-07 2.45E-07 1.84E-07 1.24E-07 NE 9.96E-07 3.20E-07 2.08E-07 1.59E-07 1.10E-07 ENE 9.65E-07 3.20E-07 2.11E-07 1.63E-07 1.13E-07 E 6.98E-07 2.33E-07 1.63E-07 1.28E-07 9.06E-08 ESE 6.76E-07 2.25E-07 1.53E-07 1.19E-07 8.34E-08 SE 6.37E-07 2.10E-07 1.42E-07 1.09E-07 7.57E-08 SSE 4.81E-07 1.54E-07 1.05E-07 8.07E-08 5.64E-08 S 4.58E-07 1.39E-07 9.34E-08 7.15E-08 4.94E-08 SSW 3.55E-07 1.17E-07 8.01E-08 6.23E-08 4.37E-08 SW 3.75E-07 1.37E-07 9.74E-08 7.64E-08 5.33E-08 WSW 5.12E-07 1.83E-07 1.26E-07 9.70E-08 6.66E-08 W 4.50E-07 1.52E-07 9.99E-08 7.50E-08 4.99E-08 WNW 6.31E-07 1.98E-07 1.28E-07 9.51E-08 6.28E-08 NW 6.67E-07 2.08E-07 1.39E-07 1.07E-07 7.43E-08 NNW 7.06E-07 2.12E-07 1.39E-07 1.06E-07 7.26E-08 N 7.42E-07 2.32E-07 1.53E-07 1.17E-07 8.07E-08 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-20 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-4 NMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 9.27E-08 7.36E-08 6.06E-08 5.13E-08 4.42E-08 NE 8.40E-08 6.76E-08 5.62E-08 4.79E-08 4.15E-08 ENE 8.65E-08 6.96E-08 5.79E-08 4.93E-08 4.27E-08 E 6.98E-08 5.64E-08 4.71E-08 4.02E-08 3.49E-08 ESE 6.44E-08 5.23E-08 4.38E-08 3.75E-08 3.27E-08 SE 5.79E-08 4.67E-08 3.89E-08 3.33E-08 2.89E-08 SSE 4.37E-08 3.55E-08 2.99E-08 2.57E-08 2.24E-08 S 3.79E-08 3.07E-08 2.58E-08 2.21E-08 1.93E-08 SSW 3.37E-08 2.73E-08 2.28E-08 1.95E-08 1.70E-08 SW 4.03E-08 3.20E-08 2.62E-08 2.20E-08 1.88E-08 WSW 4.99E-08 3.94E-08 3.22E-08 2.70E-08 2.30E-08 W 3.69E-08 2.89E-08 2.36E-08 1.97E-08 1.68E-08 WNW 4.64E-08 3.65E-08 2.99E-08 2.51E-08 2.15E-08 NW 5.63E-08 4.49E-08 3.70E-08 3.12E-08 2.68E-08 NNW 5.52E-08 4.42E-08 3.67E-08 3.12E-08 2.70E-08 N 6.14E-08 4.92E-08 4.08E-08 3.46E-08 2.99E-08 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-21 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-4 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 3.87E-08 3.42E-08 3.06E-08 2.76E-08 2.51E-08 NE 3.65E-08 3.25E-08 2.91E-08 2.64E-08 2.40E-08 ENE 3.75E-08 3.34E-08 3.00E-08 2.72E-08 2.48E-08 E 3.07E-08 2.73E-08 2.46E-08 2.23E-08 2.03E-08 ESE 2.89E-08 2.59E-08 2.34E-08 2.13E-08 1.95E-08 SE 2.55E-08 2.28E-08 2.06E-08 1.87E-08 1.71E-08 SSE 1.99E-08 1.78E-08 1.61E-08 1.47E-08 1.35E-08 S 1.71E-08 1.53E-08 1.39E-08 1.26E-08 1.16E-08 SSW 1.50E-08 1.34E-08 1.21E-08 1.10 E-08 1.00 E-08 SW 1.64E-08 1.44E-08 1.28E-08 1.15E-08 1.04E-08 WSW 2.00E-08 1.76E-08 1.56E-08 1.40E-08 1.26E-08 W 1.46E-08 1.29E-08 1.14E-08 1.03E-08 9.28E-09 WNW 1.87E-08 1.65E-08 1.47E-08 1.32E-08 1.20E-08 NW 2.33E-08 2.06E-08 1.83E-08 1.65E-08 1.49E-08 NNW 2.37E-08 2.11E-08 1.89E-08 1.71E-08 1.56E-08 N 2.62E-08 2.33E-08 2.08E-08 1.88E-08 1.71E-08 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-22 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-4 FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 2.29E-08 2.11E-08 1.95E-08 1.81E-08 1.68E-08 NE 2.20E-08 2.03E-08 1.87E-08 1.74E-08 1.62E-08 ENE 2.27E-08 2.09E-08 1.94E-08 1.80E-08 1.68E-08 E 1.87E-08 1.72E-08 1.60E-08 1.49E-08 1.39E-08 ESE 1.79E-08 1.66E-08 1.54E-08 1.44E-08 1.3 5 E-08 SE 1.57E-08 1.46E-08 1.35E-08 1.26E-08 1.18E-08 SSE 1.24E-08 1.15E-08 1.08E-08 1.01E-08 9.44E-09 S 1.07E-08 9.94E-09 9.26E-09 8.67E-09 8.14E-09 SSW 9.20E-09 8.50E-09 7.89E-09 7.36E-09 6.88E-09 SW 9.45E-09 8.64E-09 7.95E-09 7.34E-09 6.81E-09 WSW 1.15E-08 1.05E-08 9.61E-09 8.87E-09 8.22E-09 W 8.44E-09 7.72E-09 7.10E-09 6.56E-09 6.09E-09 WNW 1.09E-08 1.00E-08 9.24E-09 8.55E-09 7.95E-09 NW 1.36E-08 1.25E-08 1.15E-08 1.06E-08 9.87E-09 NNW 1.43E-08 1.32E-08 1.22E-08 1.13E-08 1.06E-08 N 1.57E-08 1.44E-08 1.33E-08 1.24E-08 1.15E-08 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-23 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-4 E CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 1.57E-08 1.47E-08 8.73E-09 5.96E-09 4.41E-09 NE 1.52E-08 1.43E-08 8.55E-09 5.88E-09 4.37E-09 ENE 1.58E-08 1.48E-0 8 8.95E-09 6.19E-09 4.63E-09 E 1.30E-08 1.22E-08 7.44E-09 5.17E-09 3.88E-09 ESE 1.27E-08 1.20E-08 7.50E-09 5.33E-09 4.07E-09 SE 1.11E-08 1.05E-08 6.53E-09 4.62E-09 3.52E-09 SSE 8.89E-09 8.40E-09 5.32E-09 3.81E-09 2.93E-09 S 7.67E-09 7.25E-09 4.60E-09 3.30E-09 2.53E-09 SSW 6.46E-09 6.09E-09 3.75E-09 2.63E-09 1.99E-09 SW 6.34E-09 5.92E-09 3.43E-09 2.31E-09 1.70E-09 WSW 7.64E-09 7.13E-09 4.08E-09 2.72E-09 1.97E-09 W 5.67E-09 5.30E-09 3.08E-09 2.07E-09 1.52E-09 WNW 7.42E-09 6.95E-09 4.10E-09 2.80E-09 2.07E-09 NW 9.21E-09 8.61E-09 5.04E-09 3.42E-09 2.52E-09 NNW 9.89E-09 9.29E-09 5.61E-09 3.88E-09 2.90E-09 N 1.08E-08 1.01E-08 6.01E-09 4.12E-09 3.06E-09 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-24 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-4 FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 3.44E-09 2.77E-09 2.29E-09 1.93E-09 1.66E-09 NE 3.42E-09 2.76E-09 2.29E-09 1.93E-09 1.66E-09 ENE 3.63E-09 2.94E-09 2.44E-09 2.07E-09 1.79E-09 E 3.06E-09 2.48E-09 2.07E-09 1.76E-09 1.52E-09 ESE 3.26E-09 2.68E-09 2.25E-09 1.93E-09 1.67E-09 SE 2.81E-09 2.30E-09 1.93E-09 1.65E-09 1.43E-09 SSE 2.35E-09 1.93E-09 1.63E-09 1.40E-09 1.22E-09 S 2.03E-09 1.67E-09 1.41E-09 1.21E-09 1.05E-09 SSW 1.57E-09 1.28E-09 1.07E-09 9.14E-10 7.91E-10 SW 1.31E-09 1.05E-09 8.67E-10 7.30E-10 6.25E-10 WSW 1.51E-09 1.20E-09 9.8 5E-10 8.24E-10 7.02E-10 W 1.18E-09 9.41E-10 7.74E-10 6.50E-10 5.56E-10 WNW 1.62E-09 1.30E-09 1.08E-09 9.10E-10 7.82E-10 NW 1.96E-09 1.57E-09 1.30E-09 1.1 0E-09 9.39 E-10 NNW 2.28E-09 1.85E-09 1.5 4 E-09 1.30E-09 1.12E-09 N 2.39E-09 1.93E-09 1.59E-09 1.35E-09 1.16E-09 Source: Containment Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-25 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-5 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 2.86E-06 9.58E-07 5.59E-07 3.94E-07 2.40E-07 NE 2.30E-06 7.94E-07 4.74 E-07 3.39E-07 2.11E-07 ENE 2.26E06 7.95E-07 4.75E-07 3.40E-07 2.12E-07 E 1.60E-06 5.70E-07 3.61E-07 2.63E-07 1.67E-07 ESE 1.63E-06 5.61E-07 3.49E-07 2.53E-07 1.61E-07 SE 1.46E-06 5.01E-07 3.11E-07 2.24E-07 1.41E-07 SSE 1.15E-06 3.80E-07 2.39E-07 1.73E-07 1.11E-07 S 1.04E-06 3.39E-07 2.12E-07 1.53E-07 9.71E-08 SSW 8.17E-07 2.87E-07 1.78E-07 1.29E-07 8.15E-08 SW 8.42E-07 3.23E-07 2.03E-07 1.46E-07 9.06E-08 WSW 1.05E-06 3.91E-07 2.44E-07 1.76E-07 1.09E-07 W 1.00E-06 3.42E-07 2.06E-07 1.45E-07 8.77E-08 WNW 1.49E-06 4.83E-07 2.8 9E-07 2.03E-07 1.24E-07 NW 1.41E-06 4.78E-07 3.03E-07 2.18E-07 1.36E-07 NNW 1.58E-06 5.17E-07 3.18E-07 2.27E-07 1.42E-07 N 1.54E-06 5.27E-07 3.27E-07 2.36E-07 1.47E-07 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-26 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-5 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.67E-07 1.25E-07 9.90E-08 8.08E-08 6.77E-08 NE 1.49E-07 1.13E-07 9.04E-08 7.43E-08 6.27E-08 ENE 1.50E-07 1.14E-07 9.12E-08 7.52E-08 6.35E-08 E 1.19E-07 9.16E-08 7.35E-08 6.09E-08 5.17E-08 ESE 1.16E-07 8.91E-08 7.18E-08 5.97E-08 5.09E-08 SE 1.01E-07 7.78E-08 6.27E-08 5.21E-08 4.43E-08 SSE 7.98E-08 6.18 E-08 5.00E-08 4.17E-08 3.56E-08 S 6.98E-08 5.39E-08 4.36E-08 3.63E-08 3.10E-08 SSW 5.84E-08 4.49E-08 3.61E-08 3.00E-08 2.55E-08 SW 6.34E-08 4.77E-08 3.76E-08 3.07E-08 2.56E-08 WSW 7.61E-08 5.73E-08 4.52E-08 3.69E-08 3.0 8 E-08 W 6.07E-08 4.54E-08 3.57E-08 2.90E-08 2.43E-08 WNW 8.57E-08 6.41E-08 5.04E-08 4.10E-08 3.42E-08 NW 9.56E-08 7.22E-08 5.71E-08 4.66E-08 3.91E-08 NNW 1.00E-07 7.62E-08 6.07E-08 5.00E-08 4.22E-08 N 1.04E-07 7.93E-08 6.31E-08 5.19E-08 4.38E-08 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-27 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-5 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 5.79 E-08 5.03E-08 4.42E-08 3.93E-08 3.52E-08 NE 5.38E-08 4.69E-08 4.14E-08 3.70E-08 3.32E-08 ENE 5.47E-08 4.78E-08 4.23E-08 3.78E-08 3.41E-08 E 4.46E-08 3.91E-08 3.47E-08 3.11E-08 2.80E-08 ESE 4.41E-08 3.88E-08 3.46E-08 3.11E-08 2.82E-08 SE 3.84E-08 3.38E-08 3.01E-08 2.71E-08 2.45E-08 SSE 3.10E-08 2.73E-08 2.44E-08 2.20E-08 2.00E-08 S 2.70E-08 2.38E-08 2.13E-08 1.92E-08 1.74E-08 SSW 2.21E-08 1.94E-08 1.73E-08 1.55E-08 1.40E-08 SW 2.19E-08 1.90E-08 1.67E-08 1.48E-08 1.32E-08 WSW 2.63E-08 2.28E-08 2.00E-08 1.77E-08 1.58E-08 W 2.07E-08 1.79E-08 1.57E-08 1.39E-08 1.25E-08 WNW 2.92E-08 2.53E-08 2.22E-08 1.97E-08 1.76E-08 NW 3.34E-08 2.90E-08 2.55E-08 2.26E-08 2.03E-08 NNW 3.62E-08 3.16E-08 2.80E-08 2.50E-08 2.24E-08 N 3.76E-08 3.28E-08 2.89E-08 2.58E-08 2.32E-08 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-28 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-5 VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 3.18E-08 2.88E-08 2.63E-08 2.42E-08 2.23E-08 NE 3.00E-08 2.74E-08 2.50E-08 2.30E-08 2.13E-08 ENE 3.09E-08 2.82E-08 2.58E-08 2.38E-08 2.20E-08 E 2.55E-08 2.33E-08 2.14E-08 1.97E-08 1.83E-08 ESE 2.57E-08 2.36E-08 2.18E-08 2.02E-08 1.88E-08 SE 2.24E-08 2.05E-08 1.89E-08 1.75E-08 1.63E-08 SSE 1.83E-08 1.68E-08 1.55E-08 1.44E-08 1.34E-08 S 1.59E-08 1.46E-08 1.35E-08 1.25E-08 1.17E-08 SSW 1.27E-08 1.17E-08 1.07E-08 9.94E-09 9.23E-09 SW 1.19E-08 1.08E-08 9.87E-09 9.06E-09 8.36E-09 WSW 1.42E-08 1.29E-08 1.18E-08 1.08E-08 9.92E-09 W 1.12E-08 1.02E-08 9.28E-09 8.51E-09 7.84E-09 WNW 1.58E-08 1.44E-08 1.31E-08 1.20E-08 1.11E-08 NW 1.83E-08 1.66E-08 1.51E-08 1.39E-08 1.28E-08 NNW 2.03E-08 1.85E-08 1.70E-08 1.56E-08 1.44E-08 N 2.10E-08 1.91E-08 1.75E-08 1.61E-08 1.49E-08 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-29 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-5 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED) Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 2.06E-08 1.92E-08 1.07E-08 6.99E-09 5.00E-09 NE 1.98E-08 1.84E-08 1.04E-08 6.87E-09 4.95E-09 ENE 2.05E-08 1.91E-08 1.09E-08 7.27E-09 5.28E-09 E 1.70E-08 1.59E-08 9.19E-09 6.16E-09 4.50E-09 ESE 1.76E-08 1.65E-08 9.80E-09 6.71E-09 4.98E-09 SE 1.52E-08 1.43E-08 8.44E-09 5.76E-09 4.25E-09 SSE 1.25E-08 1.18E-08 7.07E-09 4.86E-09 3.62E-09 S 1.09E-08 1.02E-08 6.13E-09 4.20E-09 3.12E-09 SSW 8.61E-09 8.06E-09 4.72E-09 3.19E-09 2.35E-09 SW 7.74E-09 7.19E-09 4.01E-09 2.63E-09 1.89E-09 WSW 9.17E-09 8.51E-09 4.67E-09 3.03E-09 2.15E-09 W 7.26E-09 6.74E-09 3.73E-09 2.42E-09 1.73E-09 WNW 1.03E-08 9.53E-09 5.29E-0 9 3.45E-09 2.47E-09 NW 1.19E-08 1.10E-08 6.15E-09 4.02E-09 2.88E-09 NNW 1.34E-08 1.25E-08 7.10E-09 4.71E-09 3.40E-09 N 1.38E-08 1.29E-08 7.27E-09 4.81E-09 3.47E-09 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-30 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-5 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 3.80E-09 2.99E-09 2.42E-09 2.01E-09 1.70E-09 NE 3.7 8 E-09 2.99E-09 2.43E-09 2.03E-09 1.72E-09 ENE 4.05E-09 3.22E-09 2.63E-09 2.19E-09 1.86E-09 E 3.46E-09 2.76E-09 2.26E-09 1.89E-09 1.61E-09 ESE 3.89E-09 3.13E-09 2.58E-09 2.17E-09 1.86E-09 SE 3.31E-09 2.66E-09 2.19E-09 1.84E-09 1.58E-09 SSE 2.83E-09 2.28E-09 1.88E-09 1.59E-09 1.36E-09 S 2.43E-09 1.96E-09 1.61 E-09 1.36E-09 1.16E-09 SSW 1.82E-09 1.46E-09 1.20E-09 1.00E-09 8.58E-1 0 SW 1.44E-09 1.14E-09 9.24E-10 7.68E-10 6.51E-10 WSW 1.63E-0 9 1.28E-09 1.03E-09 8.54E-10 7.21E-10 W 1.31E-09 1.03E-09 8.33E-10 6.90E-10 5.82E-10 WNW 1.87E-09 1.47E-09 1.19E-09 9.89E-10 8.36E-10 NW 2.19E-09 1.73E-09 1.40 E-09 1.16E-09 9.84E-10 NNW 2.61E-09 2.06E-09 1.68E-09 1.40E-09 1.19E-09 N 2.65E-09 2.10E-09 1.71E-09 1.43E-09 1.21E-09 Source: Radwaste Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-31 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-6 UES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 5.74E-06 1.87E-06 9.56E-07 6.39E-07 3.61E-07 NE 4.95E-06 1.64E-06 8.35E-07 5.60E-07 3.19E-07 ENE 5.40E-06 1.79E-06 9.06E-07 6.05E-07 3.44E-07 E 4.52E-06 1.47E-06 7.51E-07 5.02E-07 2.87E-07 ESE 4.10E-06 1.30E-06 6.74E-07 4.52E-07 2.62E-07 SE 4.06E-06 1.27E-06 6.59E-07 4.40E-07 2.52E-07 SSE 2.97E-06 9.19E-07 4.80E-07 3.22E-07 1.87E-07 S 3.13E-06 9.46E-07 5.02E-07 3.36E-07 1.94E-07 SSW 2.23E-06 7.11E-07 3.69E-07 2.47E-07 1.42E-07 SW 2.19E0-6 7.38E-07 3.64E-07 2.40E-07 1.34E-07 WSW 2.71E-06 9.01E-07 4.44E-07 2.93E-07 1.63E-07 W 2.12E-06 6.76E-07 3.43E-07 2.27E-07 1.28E-07 WNW 3.07E-06 9.56E-07 4.91E-07 3.26E-07 1.84E-07 NW 3.70E-06 1.17E-06 5.90E-07 3.92E-07 2.21E-07 NNW 3.92E-06 1.23E-0 6 6.32E-07 4.21E-07 2.40E-07 N 3.73E-06 1.21E-06 6.17E-07 4.13E-07 2.34E-07 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-32 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-6 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 2.39E-07 1.73E-07 1.33E-07 1.06E-07 8.72E-08 NE 2.13E-07 1.55E-07 1.20E-07 9.64E-08 7.97E-08 ENE 2.29E-07 1.67E-07 1.29E-07 1.03E-07 8.53E-08 E 1.91E-07 1.40E-07 1.08E-07 8.69E-08 7.20E-08 ESE 1.77E-07 1.31E-07 1.02E-07 8.25E-08 6.88E-08 SE 1.69E-07 1.24E-07 9.63E-08 7.77E-08 6.45E-08 SSE 1.27E-07 9.37E-08 7.33E-08 5.95E-08 4.96E-08 S 1.31E-07 9.60E-08 7.45E-08 6.01E-08 4.99E-08 SSW 9.56E-08 7.01E-08 5.44E-08 4.39E-08 3.65E-08 SW 8.76E-08 6.31E-08 4.83E-08 3.85E-08 3.16E-08 WSW 1.07E-07 7.74E-08 5.93E-08 4.72E-08 3.88E-08 W 8.45E-08 6.12E-08 4.70E-08 3.75E-08 3.09E-08 WNW 1.22E-07 8.82E-08 6.77E-08 5.41E-08 4.45E-08 NW 1.47E-07 1.06E-07 8.16E-08 6.52E-08 5.36E-08 NNW 1.60E-07 1.16E-07 8.96E-08 7.18E-08 5.93E-08 N 1.55E-07 1.13E-07 8.70E-08 6.97E-08 5.74E-08 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-33 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-6 ANNUAL BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 7.33E-08 6.28E-08 5.46E-08 4.80E-08 4.26E-08 NE 6.73E-08 5.79E-08 5.05E-08 4.45E-08 3.96E-08 ENE 7.21E-08 6.20E-08 5.40E-08 4.77E-08 4.24E-08 E 6.09E-08 5.24E-08 4.58E-08 4.04E-08 3.60E-08 ESE 5.85E-08 5.07E-08 4.45E-08 3.95E-08 3.54E-08 SE 5.48E-08 4.73E-08 4.14E-08 3.67E-08 3.27E-08 SSE 4.23E-08 3.67E-08 3.23E-08 2.87E-08 2.57E-08 S 4.23E-08 3.65E-08 3.20E-08 2.83E-08 2.53E-08 SSW 3.09E-08 2.67E-08 2.33E-08 2.06E-08 1.84E-08 SW 2.65E-08 2.27E-08 1.97E-08 1.73E-08 1.54E-08 WSW 3.25E-08 2.78E-08 2.41E-08 2.12E-08 1.88E-08 W 2.60E-08 2.22E-08 1.93E-08 1.70E-08 1.51E-08 WNW 3.74E-08 3.20E-08 2.78E-08 2.44E-08 2.17E-08 NW 4.51E-08 3.86E-08 3.35E-08 2.94E-08 2.61E-08 NNW 5.00E-08 4.29E-08 3.74E-08 3.29E-08 2.93E-08 N 4.84E-08 4.16E-08 3.62E-08 3.19E-08 2.83E-08 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-34 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-6 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 3.80E-08 3.43E-08 3.10E-08 2.83E-08 2.59E-08 NE 3.55E-08 3.21E-08 2.91E-08 2.66E-08 2.45E-08 ENE 3.81E-08 3.44E-08 3.12E-08 2.86E-08 2.62E-08 E 3.23E-08 2.92E-08 2.66E-08 2.43E-08 2.24E-08 ESE 3.19E-08 2.90E-08 2.65E-08 2.43E-08 2.25E-08 SE 2.94E-08 2.67E-08 2.43E-08 2.23E-08 2.06 E-08 SSE 2.32E-08 2.11E-08 1.93E-08 1.77E-08 1.64E-08 S 2.27E-08 2.06E-08 1.88E-08 1.72E-08 1.58E-08 SSW 1.66E-08 1.50E-08 1.37E-08 1.25E-08 1.15E-08 SW 1.37E-08 1.24E-08 1.12E-08 1.02E-08 9.36E-09 WSW 1.68E-08 1.51E-08 1.36E-08 1.24E-08 1.14E-08 W 1.35E-08 1.21E-08 1.10E-08 1.00E-08 9.18E-09 WNW 1.94E-08 1.74E-08 1.58E-08 1.44E-08 1.32E-08 NW 2.33E-08 2.09E-08 1.90E-08 1.73E-08 1.58E-08 NNW 2.62E-08 2.36E-08 2.14E-08 1.96E-08 1.79E-08 N 2.53E-08 2.29E-08 2.08E-08 1.89E-08 1.74E-08 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-35 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-6 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 2.39E-08 2.21 E-08 1.18 E-08 7.47E-09 5.23E-09 NE 2.26E-08 2.09E-08 1.13E-08 7.28E-09 5.15E-09 ENE 2.42E-08 2.24E-08 1.22E-08 7.86E-09 5.57E-09 E 2.07E-08 1.92E-08 1.05E-08 6.78E-09 4.82E-09 ESE 2.08E-08 1.94E-08 1.09E-08 7.26E-09 5.27E-09 SE 1.90E-08 1.77E-08 9.83E-09 6.45E-09 4.63E-09 SSE 1.52E-08 1.41E-08 8.03E-09 5.34E-09 3.88E-09 S 1.47E-08 1.36E-08 7.55E-09 4.93E-09 3.53E-09 SSW 1.06E-08 9.89E-09 5.46E-09 3.56E-09 2.54E-09 SW 8.62E-09 7.97E-09 4.27E-09 2.73E-09 1.92E-09 WSW 1.05E-08 9.65E-09 5.10E-09 3.22E-09 2.2 4E-09 W 8.45E-09 7.81E-09 4.15E-09 2.63E-09 1.84E-09 WNW 1.21E-08 1.12E-08 5.96E-09 3.77E-09 2.64E-09 NW 1.46E-08 1.34E-08 7.12E-09 4.50E-09 3.14E-09 NNW 1.65E-08 1.53E-08 8.23E-09 5.26E-09 3.70E-09 N 1.60E-08 1.48E-08 8.00E-09 5.12E-09 3.61E-09 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-36 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-6 BUILDING (DECAYED AND DEPLETED)

Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 3.90E-09 3.03E-09 2.42E-09 1.98E-09 1.65E-09 NE 3.87E-09 3.02E-09 2.42E-09 2.00E-09 1.67E-09 ENE 4.20E-09 3.28E-09 2.64E-09 2.17E-09 1.8 3E-09 E 3.64E-09 2.85E-09 2.30E-09 1.90E-09 1.60E-09 ESE 4.04E-09 3.21E-09 2.62E-09 2.18E-09 1.85E-09 SE 3.53E-09 2.78E-09 2.26E-09 1.87E-09 1.58E-09 SSE 2.98E-09 2.36E-09 1.93E-09 1.61E-09 1.37E-09 S 2.69E-09 2.11E-09 1.71E-09 1.42E-09 1.20E-09 SSW 1.93E-09 1.52E-09 1.23E-09 1.02E-09 8.57E-10 SW 1.44E-09 1.13E-09 9.03E-10 7.44E-10 6.24E-10 WSW 1.67E-09 1.29E-09 1.03E-09 8.38E-10 6.99E-10 W 1.37E-09 1.06E-09 8.46E-10 6.92E-10 5.7 8 E-10 WNW 1.97E-09 1.52E-09 1.22E-09 9.96E-10 8.31E-10 NW 2.33E-09 1.80E-09 1.44E-09 1.17E-09 9.79E-10 NNW 2.77E-09 2.15E-09 1.72E-09 1.41E-09 1.18E-09 N 2.71E-09 2.11E-09 1.70E-09 1.39E-09 1.1 7 E-09 Source: Turbine Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-37 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 1.40E-08 5.71E-09 3.26E-09 2.11E-09 1.15E-09 NE 1.27E-08 5.11E-09 2.90E-09 1.87E-09 1.02E-09 ENE 1.20E-08 4.94E-09 2.8 9E-0 9 1.89E-09 1.05E-09 E 7.55E-09 3.32E-09 2.06E-09 1.40E-09 8.13E-10 ESE 7.96E-09 3.36E-09 2.03E-09 1.37E-09 7.84E-10 SE 7.06E-09 3.15E-09 1.95E-09 1.32E-09 7.64E-10 SSE 5.05E-09 2.21E-09 1.35E-09 9.07E-10 5.21E-10 S 3.93E-09 1.73E-09 1.04E-09 7.00E-10 4.01E-10 SSW 3.63E-09 1.57E-09 9.66E-10 6.56E-10 3.80E-10 SW 5.56E-09 2.57E-09 1.61E-09 1.10E-09 6.38E-10 WSW 7.55E-09 3.48E-09 2.18E-09 1.48E-09 8.61E-10 W 6.09E-09 2.77E-09 1.68E-09 1.13E-09 6.40E-1 0 WNW 7.64E-09 3.36E-09 1.99E-09 1.32E-09 7.38E-10 NW 7.50E-09 3.60E-09 2.21E-09 1.48E-09 8.51E-10 NNW 6.84E-09 3.04E-09 1.78E-09 1.17E-09 6.52E-10 N 8.96E-09 4.02E-09 2.36E-09 1.54E-09 8.51E-10 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-38 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 7.39E-10 5.26E-10 3.99E-10 3.07E-10 2.43E-10 NE 6.53E-10 4.65E-10 3.53E-10 2.72E-10 2.15E-10 ENE 6.83E-10 4.90E-10 3.75E-10 2.89E-10 2.28E-10 E 5.38E-10 3.92E-10 3.03E-10 2.34E-10 1.85E-10 ESE 5.16E-10 3.75E-10 2.90E-10 2.24E-10 1.77E-10 SE 5.04E-10 3.67E-10 2.84E-10 2.19E-10 1.73E-10 SSE 3.44E-10 2.50E-10 1.94E-10 1.50E-10 1.18E-10 S 2.64E-10 1.92E-10 1.48E-10 1.15E-10 9.07E-11 SSW 2.51E-10 1.83E-10 1.41E-10 1.09E-10 8.62E-11 SW 4.23E-10 3.09E-10 2.40E-10 1.85E-10 1.46E-10 WSW 5.68E-10 4.13E-10 3.20E-10 2.47E-10 1.95E-10 W 4.18E-10 3.02E-10 2.32E-10 1.79E-10 1.42E-10 WNW 4.80E-10 3.46E-10 2.65E-10 2.05E-10 1.62E-10 NW 5.58E-10 4.04E-10 3.11E-10 2.41E-10 1.91E-10 NNW 4.22E-10 3.02E-10 2.31E-10 1.7 8 E-10 1.41E-10 N 5.50E-10 3.93E-10 3.00E-10 2.31E-10 1.83E-10 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-39 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 1.97E-10 1.64E-10 1.39E-10 1.19E-10 1.04E-10 NE 1.75E-10 1.45E-10 1.23E-10 1.05E-10 9.16E-11 ENE 1.85E-10 1.54E-10 1.30E-10 1.11E-10 9.67E-11 E 1.50E-10 1.24E-10 1.05E-10 9.00E-11 7.83E-11 ESE 1.43E-10 1.19E-10 1.00E-10 8.60E-11 7.48E-11 SE 1.41E-10 1.17E -10 9.85E-11 8.45E-11 7.36E-11 SSE 9.57E-11 7.94E-11 6.70E-11 5.74E-11 5.00E-11 S 7.37E-11 6.12E-11 5.17E-11 4.44E-11 3.87E-11 SSW 6.99E-11 5.80E-11 4.90E-11 4.20E-11 3.65E-11 SW 1.19E-10 9.87E-11 8.34E-11 7.15E-11 6.23E-11 WSW 1.58E-10 1.31E-10 1.11E-10 9.52E-11 8.29E-11 W 1.15E-10 9.5 7 E-11 8.09 E-11 6.9 5 E-11 6.0 6 E-11 WNW 1.32E-10 1.09E-10 9.25E-11 7.94E-11 6.92E-11 NW 1.56E-10 1.30E-10 1.10E-10 9.43E-11 8.24E-11 NNW 1.15E-10 9.58E-11 8.11E-11 6.97E-11 6.09E-11 N 1.49E-10 1.24E-10 1.05E-10 9.04E-11 7.89E-11 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-40 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 9.14E-11 8.14E-11 7.30E-11 6.59E-11 5.99E-11 NE 8.08 E-11 7.20E-11 6.46E-11 5.83E-11 5.30E-11 ENE 8.53E-11 7.59E-11 6.80E-11 6.14E-11 5.57E-11 E 6.91E-11 6.14E-11 5.50E-11 4.97E-11 4.51E-11 ESE 6.59E-11 5.86E-11 5.25E-11 4.74E-11 4.30E-11 SE 6.49E-11 5.77E-11 5.18E-11 4.67E-11 4.24E-11 SSE 4.41E-11 3.92E-11 3.52E-11 3.17E-11 2.88E-11 S 3.42E-11 3.04E-11 2.73E-11 2.47 E-11 2.25 E-11 SSW 3.22E-11 2.86E-11 2.57E-11 2.31E-11 2.10E-11 SW 5.50E-11 4.90E-11 4.40E-11 3.98E-11 3.61E-11 WSW 7.32E-11 6.51E-11 5.84E-11 5.28E-11 4.79E-11 W 5.35E-11 4.77E-11 4.28E-11 3.87-E11 3.52E-11 WNW 6.12E-11 5.46E-11 4.90E-11 4.43E-11 4.03E-11 NW 7.30E-11 6.52E-11 5.87E-11 5.31E-11 4.84E-11 NNW 5.39 E-11 4.81E-11 4.33E-11 3.92E-11 3.57E-11 N 6.99E-11 6.25E-11 5.62E-11 5.09E-11 4.64E-11 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-41 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 5.47E-11 5.02E-11 2.55E-11 1.59E-11 1.11E-11 NE 4.84E-11 4.44E-11 2.26E-11 1.40E-11 9.74E-12 ENE 5.09E-11 4.66E-11 2.36E-11 1.46E-11 1.01E-11 E 4.11E-11 3.77E-11 1.90E-11 1.18E-11 8.15E-12 ESE 3.92E-11 3.59E-11 1.81E-11 1.12E-11 7.7 1 E-12 SE 3.88E-11 3.55E-11 1.80E-11 1.12E-11 7.76E-12 SSE 2.6 3E-11 2.41E-11 1.22E-11 7.56E-12 5.24E-12 S 2.05E-11 1.88E-11 9.62E-12 6.00E-12 4.18 E-12 SSW 1.92E-11 1.76E-11 8.8 5E-12 5.47E-12 3.78E-12 SW 3.30E-11 3.03E-11 1.55E-11 9.65E-12 6.71E-12 WSW 4.38E-11 4.02E-11 2.04E-11 1.27E-11 8.83E-12 W 3.22E-11 2.96E-11 1.52E-11 9.49E-12 6.62E-12 WNW 3.69E-11 3.39E-11 1.74E-11 1.09E-11 7.60E-12 NW 4.43E-11 4.08E-11 2.12E-11 1.34E-11 9.42E-12 NNW 3.27E-11 3.00E-11 1.56E-11 9.81E-12 6.90E-12 N 4.25E-11 3.91E-11 2.03E-11 1.28E-11 9.02E-12 Source: Containment Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-42 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-7 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE CONTAINMENT BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 8.32E-12 6.52E-12 5.28E-12 4.40E-12 3.76E-12 NE 7.30E-12 5.70E-12 4.61E-12 3.83E-12 3.27E-12 ENE 7.56E-12 5.89E-12 4.75E-12 3.94E-12 3.35E-12 E 6.07E-12 4.71E-12 3.78E-12 3.13E-12 2.64E-12 ESE 5.73E-12 4.44E-12 3.57E-12 2.95E-12 2.49E-12 SE 5.78E-12 4.49E-12 3.61E-12 2.98E-12 2.52E-12 SSE 3.90E-12 3.03E-12 2.44E-12 2.01E-12 1.70E-12 S 3.13E-12 2.45E-12 1.98E-12 1.64E-12 1.40E-12 SSW 2.32E-12 2.19E-12 1.76E-12 1.46E-12 1.24E-12 SW 5.01E-12 3.90E-12 3.13E-12 2.59E-12 2.19E-12 WSW 6.58E-12 5.10E-12 4.09E-12 3.37E-12 2.84E-12 W 4.96E-12 3.86E-12 3.10E-12 2.56E-12 2.17E-12 WNW 5.71E-12 4.46E-12 3.60E-12 2.99E-12 2.54E-12 NW 7.10E-12 5.55E-12 4.49E-12 3.72E-12 3.16E-12 NNW 5.22E-12 4.10E-12 3.32E-12 2.77E-12 2.37E-12 N 6.81E-12 5.34E-12 4.32E-12 3.59E-12 3.05E-12 Source: Containment Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-43 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 3.01E-08 1.11E-08 5.93E-09 3.67E-09 1.88E-09 NE 2.56E-08 9.38E-09 5.01E-09 3.10E-09 1.59E-09 ENE 2.52E-08 9.33E-09 5.03E-09 3.13E-09 1.62E-09 E 1.57E-08 6.16 E-09 3.46E-09 2.19E-0 9 1.16E-09 ESE 1.62E-08 6.15E-09 3.40E-09 2.14E-09 1.12E-09 SE 1.45E-08 5.68E-09 3.18E-09 2.01E-09 1.06E-09 SSE 1.07E-08 4.06E-09 2.25E-09 1.42E-09 7.44E-10 S 8.28E-09 3.23E-09 1.80E-09 1.14E-09 6.00E-10 SSW 8.03E-09 3.09E-09 1.72E-09 1.08E-09 5.68E-10 SW 1.10E-08 4.50E-09 2.57E-09 1.64E-09 8.74E-10 WSW 1.39E-08 5.71E-09 3.25E-09 2.07E-09 1.10E-09 W 1.19E-08 4.69E-09 2.60E-09 1.63E-09 8.54E-10 WNW 1.52E-08 5.94E-09 3.26E-09 2.05E-09 1.07E-09 NW 1.45E-08 6.07E-09 3.45E-09 2.18E-09 1.16E-09 NNW 1.41E-08 5.56E-09 3.06E-09 1.92E-09 9.98E-10 N 1.71E-08 6.73E-09 3.69E-09 2.31E-09 1.20E-09 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-44 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.17E-09 8.15E-10 6.06E-10 4.64E-10 3.66E-10 NE 9.96E-10 6.92E-10 5.14E-10 3.94E-10 3.11E-10 ENE 1.01E-09 7.06E-10 5.26E-10 4.02E-10 3.17E-10 E 7.34E-10 5.16E-10 3.88E-10 2.97E-10 2.34E-10 ESE 7.10E-10 4.98E-10 3.73E-10 2.85E-10 2.25E-10 SE 6.72E-10 4.72E-10 3.54E-10 2.72E-10 2.14E-10 SSE 4.70E-10 3.30E-10 2.47E-10 1.89E-10 1.49E-10 S 3.80E-10 2.67E-10 2.01E-10 1.54E-10 1.21E-10 SSW 3.59E-10 2.52E-10 1.89E-10 1.44E-10 1.14E-10 SW 5.57E-10 3.93E-10 2.96E-10 2.27E-10 1.79E-10 WSW 6.98E-10 4.92E-10 3.70E-10 2.84E-10 2.23E-10 W 5.39E-10 3.78E-10 2.83E-10 2.17E-10 1.71E-10 WNW 6.73E-10 4.72E-10 3.53E-10 2.71E-10 2.13E-10 NW 7.37E-10 5.20E-10 3.92E-10 3.01E-10 2.37E-10 NNW 6.30E-10 4.41E-10 3.30E-10 2.53E-10 2.00E-10 N 7.56E-10 5.29E-10 3.96E-10 3.03E-10 2.39E-10 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-45 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 2.97E-10 2.46E-10 2.08E-10 1.7 8 E-10 1.5 5 E-10 NE 2.52E-10 2.09E-10 1.77E-10 1.51E-10 1.32E-10 ENE 2.57E-10 2.13E-10 1.80E-10 1.54E-10 1.34E-10 E 1.89E-10 1.57E-10 1.32E-10 1.13E-10 9.82E-11 ESE 1.82E-10 1.51E-10 1.27E-10 1.09E-10 9.47E-11 SE 1.73E-10 1.44E-10 1.21E-10 1.04E-10 9.02E-11 SSE 1.21E-10 1.00E-10 8.43E-11 7.22E-11 6.27E-11 S 9.81E-11 8.13E-11 6.86E-11 5.87E-11 5.10E-11 SSW 9.22E-11 7.64E-11 6.44E-11 5.52E-11 4.79E-11 SW 1.45E-10 1.20E-10 1.01E-10 8.66E-11 7.52E-11 WSW 1.81E-10 1.50E-10 1.26E-10 1.08E-10 9.40E-11 W 1.39E-10 1.15E-10 9.71E-11 8.32E-11 7.2 4 E-11 WNW 1.73 E-10 1.44 E-10 1.21 E-1 0 1.0 4 E-10 9.0 4 E-11 NW 1.92E-10 1.59E-10 1.35E-10 1.15E-10 1.00E-10 NNW 1.62E-10 1.34E-10 1.13E-10 9.72E-11 8.46E-11 N 1.94E-10 1.61E-10 1.36E-10 1.17E-10 1.02E-10 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-46 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 1.37E-1 0 1.21E-10 1.09E-10 9.78E-11 8.87E-11 NE 1.16E-10 1.03E-10 9.20E-11 8.29E-11 7.51E-11 ENE 1.18E-10 1.05E-10 9.36E-11 8.43E-11 7.64E-11 E 8.64E-11 7.67E-11 6.86E-11 6.18E-11 5.60E-11 ESE 8.33E-11 7.39E-11 6.61E-11 5.95E-11 5.39E-11 SE 7.94E-11 7.05E-11 6.31E-11 5.68E-11 5.15E-11 SSE 5.52E-11 4.90E-11 4.38E-11 3.94E-11 3.57E-11 S 4.49E-11 3.99E-11 3.57E-11 3.21E-11 2.91E-11 SSW 4.22E-11 3.74E-11 3.35E-11 3.01E-11 2.73E-11 SW 6.62E-11 5.88E-11 5.26E-11 4.74E-11 4.30E-11 WSW 8.28E-11 7.36E-11 6.59E-11 5.94E-11 5.39E-11 W 6.38E-11 5.67E-11 5.08E-11 4.58E-11 4.16E-11 WNW 7.96E-11 7.08E-11 6.34E-11 5.72E-11 5.19E-11 NW 8.85E-11 7.88E-11 7.07E-11 6.38E-11 5.80E-11 NNW 7.46E-11 6.64E-11 5.95E-11 5.37E-11 4.87E-11 N 8.96E-11 7.98E-11 7.15E-11 6.46E-11 5.86E-11 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-47 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 8.08E-11 7.40E-11 3.70E-11 2.28E-11 1.58E-11 NE 6.84E-11 6.27E-11 3.13E-11 1.92E-11 1.33E-11 ENE 6.96E-11 6.37E-11 3.17E-11 1.95E-11 1.3 5 E-11 E 5.10E-11 4.67E-11 2.33E-11 1.43E-11 9.98E-12 ESE 4.91E-11 4.49E-11 2.23E-11 1.37E-11 9.48E-12 SE 4.69E-11 4.30E-11 2.15E-11 1.33E-11 9.22E-12 SSE 3.25E-11 2.98E-11 1.48E-11 9.08E-12 6.30E-12 S 2.66E-11 2.43E-11 1.22E-11 7.52E-12 5.26E-12 SSW 2.49E-11 2.28E-11 1.14E-11 6.98E-12 4.85E-12 SW 3.92E-11 3.59E-11 1.80E-11 1.11E-11 7.70E-12 WSW 4.91E-11 4.50E-11 2.26E-11 1.40E-11 9.70E-12 W 3.79E-11 3.47E-11 1.75E-11 1.08E-11 7.52E-12 WNW 4.73E-11 4.34E-11 2.19E-11 1.35E-11 9.41E-12 NW 5.29E-11 4.86E-11 2.47E-11 1.55E-11 1.08E-11 NNW 4.45E-11 4.08E-11 2.07E-11 1.29E-11 9.04E-12 N 5.35E-11 4.91E-11 2.49E-11 1.55E-11 1.09E-11 Source: Radwaste Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-48 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-8 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE RADWASTE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 1.19E-11 9.36E-12 7.5 9E-12 6.36E-12 5.46E-12 NE 1.01E-11 7.94E-12 6.47E-12 5.44E-12 4.70E-12 ENE 1.02E-11 8.08E-12 6.60E-12 5.57E-12 4.82E-12 E 7.61E-12 6.05E-12 4.97E-12 4.21E-12 3.67E-12 ESE 7.20E-12 5.70E-12 4.67E-12 3.95E-12 3.43E-12 SE 7.01E-12 5.56E-12 4.55E-12 3.85E-12 3.34E-12 SSE 4.80E-12 3.81E-12 3.13E-12 2.66E-12 2.32E-12 S 4.06E-12 3.26E-12 2.70E-12 2.31E-12 2.03 E-12 SSW 3.69E-12 2.92E-12 2.39E-12 2.02E-12 1.76E-12 SW 5.78E-12 4.52E-12 3.65E-12 3.04E-12 2.59E-12 WSW 7.27E-12 5.68E-12 4.58E-12 3.81E-12 3.25E-12 W 5.64E-12 4.40E-12 3.55E-12 2.95E-12 2.51E-12 WNW 7.07E-12 5.54E-12 4.47E-12 3.73E-12 3.18E-12 NW 8.24E-12 6.51E-12 5.30E-12 4.45E-12 3.83E-12 NNW 6.91E-12 5.49E-12 4.50E-12 3.81E-12 3.30E-12 N 8.30E-12 6.57E-12 5.37E-12 4.52E-12 3.91E-12 Source: Radwaste Building FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-49 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.4 NNE 5.08E-08 1.75E-08 9.00E-09 5.49E-09 2.75E-09 NE 4.36E-08 1.50E-08 7.70E-09 4.70E-09 2.36E-09 ENE 4.55E-08 1.57E-08 8.05E-09 4.91E-09 2.46E-09 E 3.40E-08 1.18E-08 6.05E-09 3.70E-09 1.86E-09 ESE 3.00E-08 1.03E-08 5.33E-09 3.26E-09 1.64E-09 SE 2.92E-08 1.01E-08 5.22E-09 3.19E-09 1.61E-09 SSE 2.04E-08 7.02E-09 3.61E-09 2.21E-09 1.11E-09 S 1.88E-08 6.49E-09 3.34E-09 2.04E-09 1.03E-09 SSW 1.59E-08 5.50E-09 2.84E-09 1.74E-09 8.77E-10 SW 2.19E-08 7.56 E-09 3.90 E-09 2.38 E-09 1.20 E-09 WSW 2.70E-08 9.39E-09 4.84 E-0 9 2.96E-09 1.49E-09 W 1.99E-08 6.95E-09 3.60E-09 2.21E-09 1.12E-09 WNW 2.69E-08 9.31E-09 4.80E-09 2.93E-09 1.48E-09 NW 3.08E-08 1.08E-08 5.58E-09 3.42E-09 1.73E-09 NNW 2.92 E-0 8 1.01E-08 5.23E-09 3.19E-09 1.61E-09 N 3.31E-08 1.15E-08 5.93E-09 3.63E-09 1.83E-09 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-50 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 NNE 1.70E-09 1.16E-09 8.57E-10 6.55E-10 5.18E-10 NE 1.45E-09 9.99E-10 7.36E-10 5.62E-10 4.44E-10 ENE 1.52E-09 1.04E-09 7.68E-10 5.87E-10 4.64E-10 E 1.15E-09 7.89E-10 5.82E-10 4.45E-10 3.51E-10 ESE 1.02E-09 7.01E-10 5.17E-10 3.96E-10 3.13E-10 SE 9.96E-10 6.86E-10 5.06E-10 3.88E-10 3.06E-10 SSE 6.87E-10 4.73E-10 3.49E-10 2.67E-10 2.11E-10 S 6.36E-10 4.38E-10 3.23E-10 2.47E-10 1.96E-10 SSW 5.42E-10 3.74E-10 2.76E-10 2.11E-10 1.67E-10 SW 7.43E-10 5.12E-10 3.78E-10 2.89E-10 2.28E-10 WSW 9.20E-10 6.33E-10 4.66E-10 3.57E-10 2.52E-10 W 6.90E-10 4.75E-10 3.51E-10 2.69E-10 2.12E-10 WNW 9.12E-10 6.28E-10 4.63E-10 3.54E-10 2.8 0E-10 NW 1.07E-09 7.39E-10 5.46E-10 4.18E-10 3.30E-10 NNW 9.90E-10 6.81E-10 5.02E-10 3.84E-10 3.03E-10 N 1.13E-09 7.77E-10 5.73E-10 4.38E-10 3.47E-10 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-51 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 7.2 8.0 8.8 9.6 10.4 NNE 4.21E-10 3.49E-10 2.95E-10 2.53E-10 2.20E-10 NE 3.61E-10 3.00E-10 2.53E-10 2.17E-10 1.89E-10 ENE 3.77E-10 3.13E-10 2.65E-10 2.27E-10 1.97E-10 E 2.86E-10 2.37E-10 2.00E-10 1.72E-10 1.49E-10 ESE 2.54 E-10 2.11E-10 1.7 8 E-10 1.53E-10 1.33E-10 SE 2.49E-10 2.07E-10 1.75E-10 1.50E-10 1.30E-10 SSE 1.71E-10 1.42E-10 1.20E-10 1.03E-10 8.98E-11 S 1.59E-10 1.32E-10 1.12E-10 9.57E-11 8.32E-11 SSW 1.35E-10 1.12E-10 9.50E-11 8.15E-11 7.09E-11 SW 1.86E-10 1.54E-10 1.30E-10 1.12E-10 9.72E-11 WSW 2.29E-10 1.90E-10 1.61E-10 1.38E-10 1.20E-10 W 1.73E-10 1.43E-10 1.21E-10 1.04E-10 9.06E-11 WNW 2.2 8 E-10 1.89E-10 1.60E-10 1.37E-10 1.19E-10 NW 2.69E-10 2.23E-10 1.89E-10 1.62E-10 1.41E-10 NNW 2.47E-10 2.05E-10 1.73E-10 1.48E-10 1.29E-10 N 2.82E-10 2.34E-10 1.9 8 E-10 1.70E-10 1.4 8 E-10 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-52 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 11.2 12.0 12.8 13.6 14.4 NNE 1.94E-10 1.72E-10 1.54E-1 0 1.3 8 E-10 1.25E-10 NE 1.66E-10 1.47E-10 1.32E-10 1.19E-10 1.07E-10 ENE 1.73E-10 1.54 E-10 1.38E-10 1.24E-10 1.12E-10 E 1.31E-10 1.17E-10 1.04E-10 9.39E-11 8.51E-11 ESE 1.17E-10 1.04E-10 9.29E-11 8.36E-11 7.57E-11 SE 1.15E-10 1.02E-10 9.11E-11 8.20E-11 7.43E-11 SSE 7.90E-11 7.01E-11 6.27E-11 5.64E-11 5.11E-11 S 7.32E-11 6.50E-11 5.81E-11 5.23E-11 4.74E-11 SSW 6.23E-11 5.53E-11 4.95E-11 4.45E-11 4.04E-11 SW 8.5 5 E-11 7.59E-11 6.79E-11 6.11E-11 5.54E-11 WSW 1.06E-10 9.38E-11 8.39E-11 7.56E-11 6.85E-11 W 7.97E-11 7.08E-11 6.34E-11 5.71E-11 5.18E-11 WNW 1.05E-10 9.31E-11 8.33E-11 7.50E-11 6.80E-11 NW 1.24E-10 1.10E-10 9.85E-11 8.87E-11 8.04E-11 NNW 1.14E-10 1.01E-10 9.02E-11 8.12E-11 7.36E-11 N 1.30E-10 1.15E-10 1.03E-10 9.29E-11 8.42E-11 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-53 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 15.2 16.0 24.0 32.0 40.0 NNE 1.14E-10 1.04E-10 5.16E-11 3.12E-11 2.12E-11 NE 9.79E-11 8.96E-11 4.42E-11 2.67E-11 1.81E-11 ENE 1.02E-10 9.35E-11 4.61E-11 2.79E-11 1.89E-11 E 7.75E-11 7.09E-11 3.50E-11 2.12E-11 1.44E-11 ESE 6.90E-11 6.31E-11 3.12E-11 1.89E-11 1.28E-11 SE 6.77E-11 6.20E-11 3.07E-11 1.86E-11 1.26E-11 SSE 4.65E-11 4.26E-11 2.10E-11 1.27E-11 8.64E-12 S 4.32E-11 3.95E-11 1.95E-11 1.18E-11 8.03E-12 SSW 3.68E-11 3.36E-11 1.66E-11 1.01E-11 6.84E-12 SW 5.04E-11 4.61E-11 2.28E-11 1.38E-11 9.37 E-1 2 WSW 6.24E-11 5.71E-11 2.83E-11 1.72E-11 1.17E-11 W 4.72E-11 4.32E-11 2.15E-11 1.31E-11 8.89E-12 WNW 6.19E-11 5.67E-11 2.81E-11 1.70E-11 1.15E-11 NW 7.33E-11 6.71E-11 3.33E-11 2.03E-11 1.38E-11 NNW 6.70E-11 6.13E-11 3.04E-11 1.84E-11 1.25E-11 N 7.67E-11 7.02E-11 3.48E-11 2.11E-11 1.43E-11 Source: Turbine Building

FERMI 2 UFSAR 2A-54 REV 16 10/09 TABLE 2A-9 ANNUAL AVERAGE D/Q VALUES FOR THE TURBINE BUILDING Sector Downwind Distance (KM) 48.0 56.0 64.0 72.0 80.0 NNE 1.54E-11 1.17E-11 9.22E-12 7.47E-12 6.19E-12 NE 1.32E-11 1.01E-11 7.93E-12 6.44E-12 5.36E-12 ENE 1.38E-11 1.05E-11 8.29E-12 6.74E-12 5.61E-12 E 1.05E-11 8.03E-1 2 6.35E-12 5.17E-12 4.3 1 E-12 ESE 9.38E-12 7.17E-12 5.68E-12 4.64 E-12 3.8 9 E-12 SE 9.24E-12 7.06E-12 5.58E-12 4.55E-12 3.80E-12 SSE 6.33E-12 4.85E-12 3.8 4E-12 3.14E-12 2.64E-12 S 5.88E-12 4.49E-12 3.56E-12 2.90E-12 2.43E-12 SSW 5.00E-12 3.81E-12 3.01E-12 2.45E-12 2.04E-12 SW 6.83E-12 5.19E-12 4.09E-12 3.32E-12 2.75E-12 WSW 8.53E-12 6.49E-12 5.12E-12 4.15E-12 3.45E-12 W 6.50E-12 4.95E-12 3.91E-12 3.17E-12 2.63E-12 WNW 8.40E-12 6.39E-12 5.03E-12 4.08E-12 3.38E-12 NW 1.01E-11 7.67E-12 6.05E-12 4.92E-12 4.08E-12 NNW 9.13E-12 6.95E-12 5.48E-12 4.45E-12 3.70E-12 N 1.05E-11 7.99E-12 6.30E-12 5.11E-12 4.25E-12 Source: Turbine Building

Retrieved from "https://kanterella.com/w/index.php?title=ML16165A453&oldid=1353004"