RS-14-333, Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Units

Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Units

ML14352A319
Person / Time
Site:	LaSalle
Issue date:	12/04/2014
From:	Gullott D Exelon Generation Co
To:	Document Control Desk, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation
References
RS-14-333
Download: ML14352A319 (70)

Text

Amp-ExeLon Generation Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 RS-14-333 10 CFR 50.90 December 4, 2014 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission ATTN: Document Control Desk Washington, DC 20555-0001 LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-1 1 and NPF-18 NRC Docket Nos. 50-373 and 50-374

Subject:

Response to Request for Additional Information Regarding License Amendment Request to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Umits

References:

1) Letter from D. M. Gullott (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Request for a License Amendment to LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2, Technical Specification 3.7.3, 'Ultimate Heat Sink,'"

dated July 12, 2012

2) Letter from D. M. Gullott (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Supplemental Information Related to Ucense Amendment Request to LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 Technical Specification 3.7.3, 'Ultimate Heat Sink,'" dated September 17, 2012

3) Letter from P. R. Simpson (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request to Technical Specification 3.7.3,

'Ultimate Heat Sink,'* dated January 18, 2013

4) Letter from D. M. Gullott (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Additional Information Supporting License Amendment Request to Revise Technical Specification 3.7.3, 'Ultimate Heat Sink,"' dated February 11, 2013

5) Letter from D. M. Gullott (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, "Response to Request for Additional Information Related to License Amendment Request to Technical Specification 3.7.3,

'Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)," dated October 4, 2013 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under A D D (

10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document Is decontrolled.

December 4, 2014 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 2 Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390

6) Letter from D. M. Gullott (Exelon Generation Company, LLC) to U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, *Supplement to Response to Request for Additional Information Related to Ucense Amendment Request to Technical Specification 3.7.3, 'Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)," dated February 20, 2014

7) Letter from B. Pumell (U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission) to M. J. Pacilio (Exelon Generation Company, LLC), "LaSalle County Station, Units I and 2 -

Request for Additional Information Regarding Request to Revise Ultimate Heat Sink Temperature Limits (TAC Nos. ME9076 and ME9077)," dated November 14, 2014 In Reference 1, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (EGC) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-1 1 and NPF-1 8 for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (LSCS). The proposed amendment would modify TS 3.7.3, "Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)," by changing the maximum allowable temperature of the UHS from a fixed limit of 101.25 OF to allow the TS temperature limit of the cooling water supplied to the plant from the UHS to vary with the observed diumal cycle. EGC supplemented Reference 1 with letters dated September 17, 2012; January 18, 2013; February 11, 2013; October 4, 2013; and February 20, 2014 (References 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6).

In Reference 7, the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) requested additional information to complete its review of the proposed amendment. Attachments 1 through 6 provide the requested information. to this letter contains proprietary information as defined by 10 CFR 2.390, "Public inspections, exemptions, requests for withholding." Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C. (S&L), as the owner of the proprietary information, has executed the enclosed affidavit, which identifies that the enclosed proprietary information has been handled and classified as proprietary, is customarily held in confidence, and has been withheld from public disclosure. The proprietary information was provided to EGC by S&L as referenced by the affidavit. The proprietary information has been faithfully reproduced in the attached information such that the affidavit remains applicable. S&L hereby requests that the attached proprietary information be withheld, in its entirety, from public disclosure in accordance with the provisions of 10 CFR 2.390 and 10 CFR 9.17. The affidavit supporting the proprietary nature of the information in Attachment 3 is also provided in.

EGC has reviewed the information supporting a finding of no significant hazards consideration that was previously provided to the NRC in Attachment 2 of Reference 5. The additional information provided in this submittal does not affect the bases for concluding that the proposed license amendments do not involve a significant hazards consideration.

In accordance with 10 CFR 50.91, "Notice for public comment; State consultation," paragraph (b),

a copy of this letter and its attachments are being provided to the designated State of Illinois official. contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

December 4, 2014 U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Page 3 Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 There are no regulatory commitments contained in this submittal. Should you have any questions concerning this letter, please contact Ms. Lisa A. Simpson at (630) 657-2815.

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on the 4th day of December 2014.

Respectfully, David M. Gullott Manager - Licensing Exelon Generation Company, LLC Attachments:

1) 2)

3) 4)

5) 6)

Response to Request for Additional Information (Non-Proprietary)

Attachment C to LSCS Design Analysis L-002456, Revision 1 (Non-Proprietary)

Affidavit of Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C., Supporting Proprietary Nature of MES-1 1.1; Mechanical Engineering Standard MES-1 1.1, Revision 1A (PROPRIETARY)

Elevation Drawings (Non-Proprietary)

LSCS FSAR Question 372.5 and Response; LSCS UFSAR Table 2.3-9 (Non-Proprietary)

Supporting Data Files Provided on Compact Disk (Non-Proprietary) cc:

NRC Regional Administrator, Region III NRC Senior Resident Inspector, LaSalle County Station Illinois Emergency Management Agency - Division of Nuclear Safety contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document Is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT 1 Response to Request for Additional Information By letter to the U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) dated July 12, 2012, Exelon Generation Company, LLC, (EGC) requested an amendment to the Technical Specifications (TS) of Facility Operating License Nos. NPF-1 1 and NPF-1 8 for LaSalle County Station, Units 1 and 2 (LSCS). The proposed amendment would modify TS 3.7.3, "Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)," by changing the maximum allowable temperature of the UHS from a fixed limit of 101.25 OF to allow the TS temperature limit of the cooling water supplied to the plant from the UHS to vary with the observed diurnal cycle. This letter was supplemented by EGC letters dated September 17, 2012; January 18, 2013; February 11, 2013; October 4, 2013; and February 20, 2014. In a letter dated November 14, 2014, the NRC requested additional information to complete its review of the proposed amendment.

NRC RAI 1:

Backqround NRC Regulatory Guide (RG) 1.27, "Ultimate Heat Sink for Nuclear Power Plants," Revision 2 states: "The meteorological conditions resulting in minimum water cooling should be the worst case combination of controlling parameters, including diurnal variations where appropriate, for the critical time period(s) unique to the specific design of the sink." In its October 4, 2013, letter, the licensee stated that the UHS analysis for the proposed TS uses limiting environmental data and is consistent with RG 1.27, Revision 2.

Concern The NRC staff is aware of a phenomenon at LSCS, called the midnight thermal transient, where the LSCS cooling lake temperature peaks around midnight. In addition, the staff notes that the current TS 3.7.3 temperature limit for the UHS was exceeded on August 12, 2010. These events were not specifically discussed in the October 4, 2013, letter, so it is not clear that the worst-case weather conditions per RG 1.27, Revision 2, including wind speed and direction and other factors, are accounted for in the LAR. The staff is concerned that high water temperatures that could result from a midnight thermal transient would be a worst-case situation and would need to be considered in the peak temperature analysis for the UHS. The staff also needs to understand the conditions under which high LSCS cooling lake temperatures occur. The staff notes that the licensee's internal report for the root cause investigation of the August 12, 2010, event includes some of the information requested below.

Request

a. Provide information on the midnight thermal transient and other events which resulted in high LSCS cooling lake temperatures. Include details of meteorological data, environmental conditions, temperature rise, and other factors at time of occurrence that would explain the phenomena or events.

Page 1 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT I Response to Request for Additional Information

b. Describe how the midnight thermal transient and other events which resulted in high LSCS cooling lake temperatures are addressed in the analysis for this LAR.

EGC Response to Question la:

For the high LSCS cooling lake temperatures associated with the event known as the midnight thermal transient on August 12, 2010, the root cause was a decrease in surface cooling of the lake caused by low wind speed, high air temperature, high humidity, and high intensity of solar radiation. These conditions occurred in the 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> leading up to the lake temperature exceeding the TS 3.7.3 limit.

At the entrance to the UHS from the larger cooling pond, the surface area for cooling and flow area is decreased significantly. This combined with the high flow rates of the circulating water pumps can cause low transit times through the UHS, which results in very little time for cooling to occur. With the large surface area to the east of the UHS, large amounts of heat are rejected to the air mass above the water. Under conditions of easterly low wind speed conditions, this air mass can "blanket" the UHS. The reduced relative wind speed further reduces the surface heat transfer. The combination of reduced surface area and higher intake flume velocity coincident with wind from the East direction minimizes the heat transfer at the water surface. The total nominal circulating water flow is 1,233,000 gpm (616,500 gpm per Unit) or 165,000 cfm. The UHS volume under normal conditions (no sediment) plus the overlying normal lake level volume equals 1,303 acre-feet total volume. The time required for the circulating water pumps to convey the entire volume under normal conditions is 1,303 acre-feet x 43,560 ft2/acre / 165,000 cfm, or approximately 344 minutes (i.e., 5.7 hours8.101852e-5 days <br />0.00194 hours <br />1.157407e-5 weeks <br />2.6635e-6 months <br />). This is on the order of the timeframe discussed above and shown in the LSCS root cause investigation of the August 12, 2010, event.

Therefore, the highest cooling lake temperature would be indicated approximately 5 hours5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> later as a peak inlet temperature at the lake screen house. After the cooling lake temperature peaks, it decreases, lagging behind the already decreasing ambient air temperature by the same approximate time.

During accident conditions, these conditions are not present for the following reasons:

1. The area to the east of the UHS has no water due to cooling lake dike failure.

2. The area (and corresponding air mass) at the entrance to the UHS is not large enough to cause blanketing of the intake flume.

3. The transit time through the UHS is greater, allowing for more cooling.

4. Circulating pumps and other non-essential pumps are not operating during design basis events.

Page 2 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT I Response to Request for Additional Information EGC Response to Question lb:

Under the analyzed accident conditions, the flow rate through the UHS is equal to 86 cubic feet per second (cfs), and the effective UHS volume is 341.4 acre-feet (assumes 1.5 ft of sediment) x 0.634 = 216.4 acre-feet. The time required to convey the UHS volume under accident conditions is 216.4 acre-feet x 43,560 ft2/acre / 86 cfs / 3600 sec/hr, or approximately 30 hours3.472222e-4 days <br />0.00833 hours <br />4.960317e-5 weeks <br />1.1415e-5 months <br />. Therefore, the water flow through the UHS is not significant compared to the windspeed, and there would be no equivalent effect on surface cooling conditions that occurs with the lake at power under normal conditions. The effective UHS volume and surface area are included in the UHS analysis.

Additionally, the meteorological data from August 12, 2010, was screened for input to the LSCS UHS analyses. This data screened in as one of the worst case weather periods as shown in L-002457, Revision 8, Attachment 0.

NRC RAI 2:

Backgqround The application states that the LAKET-PC computer program is used to model the LSCS UHS for the design-basis event. The analysis of the UHS using LAKET-PC is described in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, "LaSalle County Station Ultimate Heat Sink Analysis," Revision 8, which was provided with the licensee's February 20, 2014, letter. Section 2.3, "Limitations" (p. 16), of L-002457 states: "The results of this calculation are limited by the accuracy of the LAKET-PC program and models inherent in the code (see Ref. 5.14, for a comparison of the predictions of the LAKET program against lake intake temperatures observed in August 1989 at the LaSalle Station)."

Concern The application does not provide sufficient information on how the LAKET-PC computer code was validated for use at LSCS.

Request Provide the comparison study listed as Reference 5.14 in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, or other documentation which compares the results of the LAKET-PC computer code with actual data for the LSCS cooling lake.

EGC Response to Question 2:

Reference 5.14 from LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8 (Attachment C to LSCS Design Analysis L-002456, Revision 1) is provided in Attachment 2.

Page 3 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT I Response to Request for Additional Information NRC RAI 3:

Background

Water bodies, particularly cooling reservoirs and ponds, are often stratified and behave differently from non-stratified bodies. The licensee's analysis in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, included a calculation to determine whether the flows in the UHS were nonstratified, which is a condition for use of the LAKET model.

Concern The NRC staff needs to evaluate the bases for the calculation used to determine if there is potential stratification of the cooling pond. The information provided with the LAR is not sufficient to support the staffs evaluation.

Request

a. Provide the Mechanical Engineering Standard MES-11.1 [Reference N5.7 in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8] or other documents explaining the basis for determining the stratification of a lake as described in Section N2.0.1, "Lake Stratification," of Attachment N, to LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8.

b. Provide elevation drawings showing the flow paths from the UHS to the residual heat removal service water pumps and the diesel generator cooling water pumps, including bypass flow around the intake screens and strainers.

EGC Response to Question 3a:

Mechanical Engineering Standard MES-11.1, Revision 1A [Reference N5.7 in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8] is provided in Attachment 3. Attachment 3 contains information proprietary to Sargent & Lundy, L.L.C. The affidavit supporting the proprietary nature of the information of MES-11.1, Revision 1A, is also provided in Attachment 3.

EGC Response to Question 3b:

The elevation drawings showing the requested flow paths are provided in Attachment 4. Site Drawings M-87, Sheets I and 2; M-134, Sheets 1 and 2; M-830, Sheets 3 and 5; M-766, Sheets 2 through 9, 11, and 12; M-770, Sheet 6; and M-930, Sheet 3 show the flow paths from the UHS to the residual heat removal service water pumps and the diesel generator cooling water pumps.

Site Drawings M-87, Sheet 1; M-770, Sheet 11; and S-143 show the bypass flow line (ORHOIAA-54") around the intake screens and strainers. Color highlighting (i.e., yellow for Unit 1 and magenta for Unit 2) is used to aid identification of the lines. Electronic copies of the elevation drawings are provided in Attachment 6.

Page 4 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT I Response to Request for Additional Information NRC RAI 4:

Background

The licensee used a combination of onsite and offsite meteorological data to determine the periods of worst UHS pond performance for temperature and evaporation. NUREG-0693, "Analysis of Ultimate Heat Sink Cooling Ponds," published November 1980 (ADAMS Accession No. ML12146A144), describes a procedure for determining the similarity of onsite and offsite meteorological records and, if necessary, a correction factor to be applied to the calculations.

Concern The NRC staff needs to evaluate consistency with NUREG-0693 for the use of offsite meteorological data from distant stations in Peoria and Springfield, Illinois, for the UHS analyses, and whether correction factors need to be applied to the results.

Reguest Provide the basis for concluding that use of offsite meteorological data from Peoria, Illinois, is more conservative for UHS temperature predictions than onsite data. Clarify whether meteorological data from Springfield, Illinois, were used in the analyses for the LAR, and, if so, whether these data are conservative for the stated purposes.

EGC Response to Question 4:

The current UHS TS analysis uses meteorological weather station data from Peoria, Illinois and Springfield, Illinois for the dates between July 4, 1948, and June 30, 1996, whereas the proposed UHS TS Analysis uses meteorological weather data from LSCS and Peoria, Illinois for the period spanning January 1, 1995, to September 30, 2010.

Peoria, Illinois, meteorological data were used for the period July 4, 1948, through June 30, 1996.

Since Peoria, Illinois, meteorological data were not available for the period of January 1952 through December 1956, Springfield, Illinois, data were substituted for that period. A comparison of meteorological data collected at Springfield with data collected at LSCS to demonstrate that conditions used for the UHS design based on Springfield data are representative or conservative for the LSCS site found that meteorological data recorded at Springfield for the period 1952 through 1956 are representative of conditions at the LSCS site and are suitable for analysis of the performance of the pond used for the UHS (Reference LSCS FSAR Question 372.5 and Response, provided in Attachment 5).

Peoria, Illinois, meteorological data were only used when measured onsite data parameters of temperature and windspeed were not available onsite during the period January 1, 1995, through September 30, 2010. The periods of missing onsite data are identified in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, Attachment K.

Page 5 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT I Response to Request for Additional Information LSCS UFSAR Table 2.3-9 shows a comparison of average and extreme temperature data from Peoria, Illinois, and LSCS. For the summer months of June, July and August for the period October 1976 through September 1978, the Peoria data are bounding for maximum temperature.

LSCS UFSAR Table 2.3-9 is also provided in Attachment 5.

NRC RAI 5:

Background

The NRC staff needs to assess the data used in the licensee's UHS analyses with respect to the use of meteorological stations far from the LSCS site. In addition, the staff needs to assess the validity of certain assumptions used in the UHS analysis.

Concern The NRC staff is conducting a confirmatory analysis to assess the adequacy of the licensee's selection of meteorological data, plug flow modeling, and use of certain assumptions (e.g.,

stratification) in the UHS analysis.

Request

a. Provide the meteorological data used in the UHS analysis for this LAR (LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, including Attachment 0), in a machine-readable format (e.g., text file, spreadsheet). Provide the raw meteorological data from Peoria and Springfield, Illinois, which were used in the analysis for the period of record at these stations.

b. Provide detailed dimensions and size of the UHS in digitized format. Also, provide a Shapefile with the UHS dimensions, if one was used in the computational fluid dynamics model.

Provide an explanation of the Shapefile format if different from standard geographic information system protocols.

c. Provide the thermal load table used in the UHS analysis in machine-readable format.

EGC Response to Question 5a:

The raw meteorological data from the on-site meteorological station used in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, is provided on a compact disk in machine-readable format data files entitled "LSCS1995.xlsx" to "LSCS201O.xlsx" (one file for each year) obtained via email from Murray and Trettel, Inc. The anemometer height for LSCS onsite meteorological data for this period was 33 ft.

The raw meteorological data from Peoria, Illinois, used in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, is provided on a compact disk in machine-readable format data files entitled "KPIA_1995.txt" through "KPIA_2010.txt" for surface meteorological data (one text file for each year). The files were obtained from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC). The anemometer Page 6 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT 1 Response to Request for Additional Information height for Peoria, Illinois, for this period was 20 ft. until September 30, 1995, and then increased on October 1, 1995 to 32.8 ft. The files are in DS-3505 format, which is a standard format that NCDC has been using for about 10 years.

The raw hourly precipitation data from NCDC for the period of record January, 1995, through September, 2010, which was used in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, is provided on a compact disk in machine-readable format data files entitled "piaprecip_95_sep_30_10.txt."

The file is in fixed record-length DS-3240 format.

The raw meteorological data from Peoria and Springfield, Illinois, are not available at LSCS in any format for the period of record July 4, 1948, through June 30, 1996. However, the combined meteorological weather data file used in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, is provided on a compact disk in a machine-readable format data file entitled, "PS489661.txt." and consists of meteorological data from Peoria, Illinois, and Springfield, Illinois, for the dates from July 4, 1948, through June 30, 1996. The reference anemometer height used in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, for this period was 20 ft.

The second combined meteorological weather data file used in LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, is provided on a compact disk in a machine-readable format data file entitled, "PIALSL9510.txt." This data consists of meteorological data from LSCS and Peoria, Illinois, from January 1, 1995, through September 30, 2010. This data was also previously provided in EGC letter to the NRC dated September 17, 2012.

The formatting for the above two combined meteorological weather data files in text (.txt) format is described in Attachment K, Page K6, of LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8.

The weather data files used for limiting temperatures/evaporation from LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, Attachment 0, are provided on a compact disk in machine-readable format data files entitled as follows:

WW_33-24-30.txt WVV_33-24-30-6AM.txt VWV_33-24-30-6AM2.txt WWO.txt WV_3.txt WW_6.txt WW_9.txt VWW_12.txt Ww_15.txt WW_18.txt VMW_21.txt WW_0-6.22.txt WVV_3-6.22.txt

'W_ 6-6.22.txt WW_I18-6.22.txt WW_21-6.22.txt Page 7 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

Proprietary Information - Withhold from Public Disclosure Under 10 CFR 2.390 ATTACHMENT I Response to Request for Additional Information NetEvapO.1.txt NetEvap_0.2.txt Diurnal.txt Wind_375.txt The weather data file used for the worst net evaporation month from LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, Attachment M, is provided on a compact disk in machine-readable format data file entitled, "30dayevap.txt."

EGC Response to Question 5b:

The electronic drawing file of the UHS as used in the computational fluid dynamics (CFD) analysis is provided on a compact disk in data file entitled, "LaSalle UHS.dwg". The drawing file "LaSalle UHS.dwg" does not have dimensions shown; however, it is in units of feet and is representative of the UHS for analyzed assumed conditions (i.e., where the surface area elevation is reduced 10' due to loss of the lake (700' to 690') due to postulated dike failure and reduction of bottom surfaces to account for 1.5' of sedimentation).

No Shapefile was used in the CFD model of LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8. The CFD STAR-CCM+ program model is provided in an exported file type format contained as a Tecplot file entitled "Tecplot.plt."

Also provided on a compact disk are machine-readable format data electronic files entitled "ASCIINol.stl.txt" and "ASCIINol.stl.xls" that represent the UHS model from the CFD program.

These files were exported and reformatted to provide coordinate units and to remove unnecessary text. The values represent 572 triangles that represent water surfaces of the UHS.

Each triangle is represented by three nodes with x,y,z dimensions. Units are in feet. Point 0,0,0 is located in the south east corner of the UHS at elevation 686.5 ft (or 3.5 ft below water surface).

The electronic drawing file of the current and combined lake and UHS showing hydrographic survey contours where used as the basis of the CFD analysis. These are included as "97ES083.1.dwg" and "97ES083.2.dwg."

EGC Response to Question 5c:

The thermal load table used in the UHS analysis Appendix P9.2 of LSCS Design Analysis L-002457, Revision 8, is provided on a compact disk in machine-readable format data file entitled, "LaSalle UHS Heat Load.xls" All of the supporting data files contained on the enclosed compact disk are listed on the cover page for Attachment 6.

Page 8 of 8 contains Proprietary Information. Withhold from public disclosure under 10 CFR 2.390. When separated from Attachment 3, this document is decontrolled.

ATTACHMENT 2 Attachment C to LSCS Design Analysis L-002456, Revision I (NON-PROPRIETARY) 19 pages follow

I CALCULATION NO.: L-002456 I Project No.: 10620-004 I PAGE NO. C1 I CALCULATION NO.: L-002456 PAGE NO. CI ATTACHMENT C Accuracy of LAKET S&L's January 5, 1990 study, "Comparison of Cooling Lake Temperature Predictions from the LAKET Computer Model with Observed Lake Temperatures for the Summer of 1989," in file WIN 0858 (Reference 5.10)

REVISION NO.

C (Cm.nionweath Edison Company Nuclear Operations Dfivision LaSalle Calculation Site Appendix - LaSalle Site NEP-12-02LA Revision 4 Exhibit A

SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO Calc L-002456, Rev. I Project No. 10620-004 Ancef a-r Ct Page C2 Comparison of Cooling Lake Temperature Predictions from the LAKET Computer Model with Observed Lake Temperatures for the Summer of 1989 COMMONWEALTH EDISON COMPANY LASALLE COUNTY STATION UNITS l&2 Prepared by Sargent & Lundy Engineers January 5, 1990 Project No. 8579-49

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. I EN GIN E ER S Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO Ifirocoin&j r a Page C3 I.

INTRODUCTION This study was authorized as a follow up of a previous study performed during 1988 (Ref.

1) in which the calculated forecasts of Sargent & Lundy's (S&L) cooling lake performance model,

LAKET, were compared to measurements of actual lake temperature of the LaSalle County Station cooling lake.

The study was motivated by the unusually hot summer weather conditions that occurred during the years of 1986 through 1988.

The summer of 1989 turned out to have quite ordinary temperatures.

This study serves a very useful purpose in that it provides further validation that the cooling lake computer model,

LAKET, can be used to provide conservative predictions of the performance of the LaSalle County Station cooling lake temperatures.

2

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L002456, Rev. I E N G I N E ER S Project No. 10620404 CHICAGO T 1 Page C4 II.

DATA COLLECTION Weather Data Weather data were obtained from Murray & Trettle (Commonwealth Edison's Meteorological Consultant),

which provided the wind speed, dry bulb and dewpoint temperatures at the LaSalle County station site.

These data were supplemented with data for the altitude of clouds, fraction of sky covered by clouds and precipitation from the National Weather Service Office at Peoria, Illinois.

These above data were used to calculate the intensity of solar radiation (short wave) and atmospheric radiation (long wave) that impinges on the cooling lake.

All data were merged together using the S&L NEWFIN Program to produce a computer file of weather data readable by the LAKET Program.

LAKET used the data to calculate the magnitudes of cooling by evaporation, conduction, and radiation.

Station Data Data printed on an hourly basis from the plant computer log were provided by LaSalle station staff which showed the condenser temperatures and the number of operating circulating water and makeup pumps for both units.

Data covered the period from July 18 to August 31, 1989.

Records of the kilowatts (KW) generated were also provided for the period from May 1 to August 31, 1989.

The records of KW generation were used with turbine heat rate values at high backpressure (4.5 inches) to calculate the heat input to the cooling-lake.

This method for determining the heat input to 3

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. I EN G INE ER S Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO 4

W e Page C5 the lake was considered to be more accurate than the use of a condenser rise calculated from the difference between condenser discharge and inlet temperatures.

A discrepancy between Unit 1 and 2 condenser inlet temperatures (1 to 1.5 OF) was noted which indicates a need for thermocouple calibration.

Lake Performance Simulation The period of the lake performance simulation extended from May 1, 1989 to August 31, 1989.

This period begins earlier than the record of condenser temperatures (which begins on July 18) in order to establish the thermal structure of the lake at the beginning of the period during which data are compared and remove the effects of an assumed initial lake temperature which may not be accurate.

The transient behavior of the dry bulb and dew point temperatures and the wind speed at the LaSalle County Station site are shown in Exhibits 1-3.

A comparison of the dry bulb temperatures shown here for 1989 with those in Ref.

1 for 1988 shows that 1988 had many more days above 90°F than 1989.

The dry bulb temperature is referred to here for convenience.

High dry bulb temperatures typically are days with little cloud cover, wind, and high dew point temperatures which are more important parameters in causing high lake temperatures.

4

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. I EN GIN E ER S Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO c7 Page C6 III. COMPARISON OF PREDICTED AND MEASURED TEMPERATURES A thermal performance simulation was made with the weather data collected at the LaSalle site and the KW generation data.

The data provided showed that all six circulating water pumps were running continuously during the period considered for data comparison, July 18 through August 28.

On August 29, one pump was shutdown on Unit 2 for the remainder of the simulation period.

The generation was close to full capacity for nearly the entire period considered in the simulation, May 1 to August 25.

Unit 2 was shut down late in the day on August 25 for the rest of the simulation period.

Exhibit 4 gives the lake design data used in the simulation.

An effectiveness value of 90% was used since it accounts for any flow anomalies in the lake such as stratification or channeling and is supported by calculations of two dimensional temperature distributions in cooling lakes.

Exhibit 5 shows the calculated lake inlet and outlet (plant discharge and intake) temperatures.

The approximately constant difference between inlet and outlet temperatures reflects the slight changes in plant load during the simulation until August 26 when one unit was shutdown.

The natural temperature shown is the theoretical temperature the lake would have with weather-used in the simulation without 5

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. I EN G IN E ER S Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO

/rr*P.^i*J C

Page C7 any heat addition to the lake.

The temperature difference between the lake outlet temperature and the natural temperature is an indicator of the effectiveness of the lake for cooling.

It indicates the maximum improvement in the cooling performance that is possible from an increase of cooling surface area or effectiveness.

Exhibit 6 gives the comparison of predicted and measured condenser inlet temperatures.

The measured temperatures are the average of two temperature measurements from each of two units with a few exceptions.

On a six day period from August 12 to August 16 Unit 2 records were unavailable and the comparison is based on Unit 1 data only.

Generally, the Unit 1 Circulating Water inlet (lake outlet) temperature readings were higher than the Unit 2 values.

Consequently, when Unit 2 values were not available the observed temperature tends to be higher than when readings are available for both units.

The scales used here for plotting permit the display of diurnal temperature variations in the predicted and measured temperatures.

They are shown to rise and fall in step.

Differences between measured and predicted temperatures are generally 2 to 3 °F with the predicted temperatures higher than the measured temperature, the only exception being the period were Unit 2 data was missing (August 12-16).

6

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. 1 EN G N E ER S Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO 477"moI-C/

Page C8 Exhibit 7 gives a comparison of average monthly values of weather statistics for 1988 and 1989.

Both dry bulb and dew point temperatures are significantly higher during August of 1988 than August 1989.

The cloud cover also is less in August 1988 than in August 1989.

Each August statistic considered alone would cause higher water temperature in 1988 versus 1989 and the combined effect of all three provides an explanation for the high water temperatures that occurred during August 1988.

The differences in statistics for July of 1988 and 1989 are smaller and not as conclusive in regard to the effect on water temperature.

This also is consistent with water temperatures occurring during July of both years which were not as different as during the month of August.

Another effect not shown in these average statistics is that caused by sustained periods of hot weather (period of low cloud cover, high dew point and dry bulb temperatures).

Since the lake requires a time period (on the order of several days) to respond to weather changes, a prolonged period of hot weather has greater effect on lake temperature.

The summer of 1989 did not exhibit these types of periods.

7

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. I EN G I N E ER S Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO h*t T C Page C9 IV.

CONCLUSION To fully assess the cooling capacity of the LaSalle Lake it is important to review temperature limitations imposed for the following:

1.

Core Standby Cooling System (CSCS)

2.

Ultimate Heat Sink (UHS)

3.

Service Water System

4.

Condenser Backpressure Studies performed on the CSCS system in relation to the 1988 events showed that all heat exchangers in this system are designed for 100°F or higher maximum cooling water inlet temperatures.

The ultimate heat sink design basis requires that the maximum permissible water temperature supply to the plant be 100°F.

LAKET studies and recent observations have shown the maximum lake inlet temperature to be below this value.

The Service Water System Heat Exchangers were reviewed in connection with 1988 studies and all but three heat exchangers (TBCCW,

RBCCW, FC) are designed for 100°F cooling water inlet temperatures.

The three heat exchangers mentioned were reviewed for the effect of 96°F inlet water temperature and found to have a negligible difference in their performance.

Inlet cooling water at 100°F for these 8

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. I ENGINEERS Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO 4P6r-,

C-Page CI0 heat exchangers will have a small effect on performance which can be compensated by the implementation of spare and/or redundant heat exchangers.

As previously mentioned, lake temperatures observed and predicted to date have remained below these maximum values.

Using a value of 96°F for circulating water inlet temperature, the maximum condenser pressure was calculated to be 4.6"HgA (in the highest pressure zone) based on a 80%

condenser cleanliness factor.

These values do not exceed the turbine back pressure limitations imposed by the turbine manufacturer.

Therefore, the station should be able to operate at full load without any unit derating during these conditions as long as condenser cleanliness is maintained.

Based on the above discussion, the cooling lake is meeting its design conditions.

It is recognized that circulating water inlet temperatures have come very close to design conditions.

This was the case during the summers of 1987 and 1988 which had weather conditions that were approximately equivalent in severity to the conditions of the previous record hot summer of 1955.

However, even during these periods the cooling lake temperature remained below the temperature limitation given previously.

Based on these observations the cooling lake for the LaSalle Station has adequate cooling capacity.

9

SARGENT & LUNDY Calc L-002456, Rev. I EN G I NE ER S Project No. 10620-004 CHICAGO 47'A -*mrT Page C11 This comparison of predicted with measured lake temperatures shows agreement to within 2-3 °F when the average temperature could be determined from measurements at both units.

The predicted temperature is also higher than the measured temperature.

This confirms the applicability of the LAKET model to the cooling lake at LaSalle County station which is well baffled and is not deep enough to exhibit significant temperature stratification.

Previous analyses that have used LAKET to predict condenser inlet temperatures are reaffirmed as providing conservative estimates of actual conditions.

10

SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO REFERENCES Calc L-002456, Rev. I Project No. 10620-004 ATTk-ff^JrC, Page C12

1.

Comparison of Cooling Lake Temperature Predictions from LAKET Computer Model with Lake Temperatures Observed at LaSalle County Station.

Sargent & Lundy Report to Commonwealth Edison, dated November 30, 1988.

11

0 tn 0'

0) 0 U) 1,00 M

0 cn

0) -

K3 0 6 c a 0,

CA) 46 15 22 EXHIBIT 1.

Dry Bulb Air Temperature During Simulation Period

a 0

CO (LI.

cOJ C) n-.

CD

?o 0.

(A I

0 4

... a CD.

0 U,

1C-.

.p P 40o.

C0 8

i5 AUG B

I 22 EXHIBIT 2.

Dew Point Air Temperature During Simulation Period

CD I:)

(\\j CD-C:)

'a 0 coi CD a)

(

CD CD CD C) 9UL A G 2

IS 22 R

8 15 22 1989 EXHIBIT 3.

Wind Speed During Simulation Period

SARGENT & LUNDY ENGINEERS CHICAGO Calc L-002456, Rev. I Project No. 10620-004 Ar*7**'*Amrv

c.

Page C16 (a

EXHIBIT 4 LASALLE COOLING LAKE SIMULATION PARAMETERS Elevation of Water Surface 700 ft Gross Lake Area Gross Lake Volume 2057 Acres 31011 Acre feet Effectiveness of cooling surface Total flow to lake (6 circulating water pumps operating plus service water) 90%

1,284,550 GPM 15

0 ff"-

Plant discharge temperature (calculated)

Plant intake temperature (calculated)

Natural temperature (calculated)

C)

(D f to C0

-Ch.

16 16 16 EXHIBIT 5.

Plant Intake and Discharge Temperatures and the Natural

a C)

C?

In KUnit 1 data only I

CE

(,n LU (average Unit 1 Measured Temperatures and Unit 2) 4Predicted Temperature 14 CD In II!

JUL 8

Is 2

RUG a

1989 EXHIBIT 6.

Comparison of Measured and Predicted Temperatures is 22

EXHLBIT 7 MONTHLY AVERAGE WEATHER STATISTICS FOR 1988 AND 1989 N

Average Dry Bulb Temperature #

F 1988 1989 77.3 73.9 76.6 70.7 Average Dewpoint Temperature #

F 1988 1989 60.0 64.7 65.9 62.8 Average Wind speed #

MPH 1988 1989 7.1 6.7 8.3 1.2 Average sky cover ##

(sunrise to sunset) tenths 1988 1989 5.2 5.7 4.5 6.0 July August co zo 00 P Murray and Trettel for LaSalle County Station (33 ft.

above grade)

M

1. 1. Peoria, IL.

<%-c

ATTACHMENT 4 Elevation Drawings M-87 Sheet I (Unit 1)

M-87 Sheet 2 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 2 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 3 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 4 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 6 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 7 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 8 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 9 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 11 (Unit 1)

M-766 Sheet 12 (Unit 1)

M-770 Sheet 6 (Unit 1)

M-830 Sheet 3 (Unit 1)

M-830 Sheet 5 (Unit 1)

M-1 34 Sheet 1 (Unit 2)

M-134 Sheet 2 (Unit 2)

M-766 Sheet 5 (Unit 2)

M-766 Sheet 6 (Unit 2)

M-766 Sheet 7 (Unit 2)

M-766 Sheet 8 (Unit 2)

M-766 Sheet 9 (Unit 2)

M-766 Sheet 11 (Unit 2)

M-766 Sheet 12 (Unit 2)

M-770 Sheet 6 (Unit 2)

M-930 Sheet 3 (Unit 2)

M-770 Sheet 11 S-143 (NON-PROPRIETARY) 27 pages follow

ATTACHMENT 5 LSCS FSAR Question 372.5 and Response; LSCS UFSAR Table 2.3-9 (NON-PROPRIETARY) 7 pages follow

LSCS-FSAR AMENDMENT 22 MAY 1977 QUESTION 372.5 "Meteorological data from Springfield, Illinois, for the period January 1952 through December 1956 have been used to supplement the available data from Peoria for establish-ing design basis conditions for the ultimate heat sink.

Provide a comparison of meteorological data collected at Springfield with data collected at LSCS to demonstrate that conditions used for the ultimate heat sink design based on Springfield data are representative or conser-vative for the LSCS site."

RESPONSE

Meteorological data from Springfield, Illinois have been summarized for the period January 1952 through December 1956.

The meteorological data used in evaluating the performance of the pond used as an ultimate heat sink include dry bulb temperature, dew-point temperature and wind speed.

These data are presented in Tables Q372.5-1 through Q372.5-4 for 1952 through 1956 at Springfield, Illinois, and are compared to similar data collected at LSCS site for the period May through December 1975.

In Table Q372.5-1, average and extreme temperature data are presented for the LSCS site and for Springfield.

While the data at these two observing stations are directly comparable for the months May through December, the remaining months of temperature data are presented for Springfield to show the overall yearly characteristics of this parameter.

Average temperatures for May through December are generally quite comparable at LSCS and Springfield, with the exception of the September average temperature which is almost 90 warmer at Springfield.

The monthly extreme temperatures at Springfield show rather marked departure from those recorded at LSCS.

This is to be expected due to period-of-record differences.

Table Q372.5-2 presents a comparison of the monthly average and extreme dew-point temperatures for LSCS and Springfield.

In general, the characteristics of the monthly dew-point temperatures at the two stations are similar to those for monthly dry bulb temperatures-general agreement for average dew-point temperatures and relatively large differences between values recorded at the two stations for extreme dew-point temperatures.

Tables Q372.5-3 and Q372.5-4 present the percent joint fre-quency of wind direction and wind speed class for LSCS and Springfield.

These statistics encompass the entire period of record for each of the observing stations, as stated above.

Calms occurred 2.44% of the time at the LSCS site and 0.70%

of the time at Springfield.

The frequencies of occurrence of the following wind speed classes are listed below for each of Q372.5-1

LSCS-FSAR AMENDMENT 22 MAY 1977 the observing stations:

WIND SPEED CLASS (m/sec)

FREQUENCY OF OCCURRENCE LSCS(33 ft)

SPRINGFIELD(200 ft)

<1 1-2 2-4 4-6 6-8 8-10 3.76 9.89 38.36 28.94 11.67 6.49 5.46 27.57 24.91 14.91 12.98 7.69 5.01 2.37

>10 Winds in the range 2 to 8 m/sec generally have the highest frequencies of occurrence at each station.

La Salle has a higher occurrence of winds in the range from 1 to 6 m/sec, while Springfield exhibits a higher occurrence of winds greater than 6 m/sec.

Any observed differences in wind speed frequencies at LSCS and Springfield can generally be attributed to differences in geographical location and period of record.

In summary, it appears that meteorological data recorded at Springfield for the period 1952 through 1956 are representa-tive of conditions at the LSCS site and are suitable for analysis of the performance of the pond used for the ultimate heat sink.

Q372.5-2

TABLE Q372.5-1 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE, AD E-TýEME TEMPERATURES

(

SF)

FOR LSCSE(MAY-DECEMBER 1975) AND FOR SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS (1952-1956)_

0n MONTH January February March April May June July August September October November December MAXIMUM LSCS SPRINGFIELD 66.20 69.80 80.60 86.00 91.90 91.40 90.19 100.40 91.40 109.40 89.40 96.80 83.61 98.60 75.60 91.40 70.20 77.00 65.30 66.20 MINIMUM LSCS SPRINGFIELD

-4.00

-5.80 6.80 23.00 41.50 30.20 51.01 42.80 50.20 51.80 53.10 48.20 40.69 35.60 30.79 19.40 19.80 8.60 1.71

-5.80 AVERAGE LSCS SPRINGFIELD 29.66 34.70 39.74 53.24 63.09 62.78 71.67 75.02 73.97 77.72 72.12 74.66 59.45 68.36 51.37 55.94 47.05 41.72 30.45 32.72 in

!1 z

N:

1-3 Annual 91.90 109.40 1.71

-5.90 58.9 53.96

TABLE Q372.5-2 COMPARISON OF AVERAGE AND EXTREME DEW POINT TEMPERATURES

(-F)

FOR LscS (MAY'1 IhIh)

A15 ND FOR SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS (1952-1956) 0w

-1 N,

c-fl MONTH January February March April May June July August September October November December Annual MAXIMUM LSCS SPRINGFIELD 59.00 59.00 62.60 68.00 67.41 71.60 77.20 78.80 82.80 78.80 70.70 77.00 71.20 71.60 63.61 69.80 59.50 62.60 55.29 57.20 MINIMUM LSCS SPRINGFIELD

-16.60

-18.40 4.00 6.80 52.20 23.00 39.99 35.60 51.49 39.20 57.00 42.80 23.79 23.00 18.19 10.40 12.31 2.20

-4.31 9.40 AVERAGE LSCS SPRINGFIELD 23.00 27.14 29.66 40.10 60.15 49.64 62.42 61.16 64.24 64.76 64.27 62.24 29.59 50.54 42.78 40.82 38.21 31.28 24.73 26.24 (n

tz 82.80 78.80

-4.31

-18.40 46.27 42.26

TABLE Q372.5-3 JOINT FREqUENCY OTSTRIBUTION OF WIND SPEED AND WIND DIRECTION FOR SPKIOFIELD',

ILLINOIS 20-FOOT LEVEL (1952-1,9,56)

(Stability Category:

A.-1)

FREQU2,N3TY (PEYRCTS OF TOTAL GOOD OBSERNVTIONS)

WINDL SPEED WIND DIRECTION (YN-TEP,/SEC,)

CAIl4 N

NNE NE ENE S

EOT IT STE S

SSW Sw WFW W

I'M NW NNW TOTAL CALK

.70

.70

.LT.O.6

.00

.08

.09

.09

.07

.10

.03

.09

.06

.09

.08

.10

.03

.07

.05

.06

.05 1.15 E

0.6-I.0

.00

.26

.22

.48

.29

.43

.28

.35

.24

.32

.34

.30

.17

.23

.21

.29

.22 4.64 1.1-2.0

.00

.32

.24

.53

.34

.57

.37

.47

.29

.34

.31

.39

.18

.33

.20

.35

.26 5.16 2.1-4.0

.00 1.67 1.36 2.18 1.73 2.35 1.55 1.98 1.47 2.12 2.20 1.87

.99

1. 4 1.92 1.87 1.56, 27.57 4.1-6.0

.00 1.31 1.20 1.19 1.11 1.17 1.14 1.46 3.16 2.89 2.10

.98 1.38

1. 29-1.97 1.60 24.91 6.1-8.0

.00

.81

.57

.51

.35

.44

.41

.55

.S6 2.29 1.99 1.13

.65

.87

.99 1.37 1.02 14.91 8.1-10.0

.00

.63

.39

-27

.27

.24

.21

.36

.91 2.00 1.52

.92

.60

.86 1.12 1.59 1.10 12.98 10.1-15.0

.00

.23

.07

.08

.10

.07

.07

.11

.42

.97

.88

.58

.50

.71 1.06

.77

.47 7.08 15.1-20.0

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01 0

.01

.01

.05

.02

.05

.l6

.1.-

.09

.01

.01

.57

.GT.20.0

.00

.00

.00

.00

.oo

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.01

.02

.DO

.00

.00

.00

.04 TOTAL

.70 5.32

[.14 5.33 4.2-6 5.38 3.86 5.06 5.82 11.33 10.23 7.45 4.29 6.04 6.26 8.27 6.28 100.00

TABLE Q372.5-4 JOINT FfýEUEMCY DISTRIMUTION OF -WMfI DP2M0 AMD wNT.'

DIREC*Ot FOR LSCS SITE 33-FOOT LEVEL (MY-DECMUER 1975)

(Stability Category:

All)

FREQUENCY (PERCENT OF TOTAL GOOD OBSERVATIONS)

,IND DIFrcTION SPEEm (mps)

CALM N

NNE.

NE ENS E

ESE SE SSE S

SEW SW WS w

WS

,7W NEq NNW TOTAL 0.00 -

0.25 2.44

.00

.00

.O

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00 2.44 0.26 -

0.50

.0C

.00

.00

,O0

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.0O

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.DO

.co 0.51 -

1.00

.00

.o4

.o4

.26

.13

.11

.02

.11

.09

.02

.13

.07

.09

.00

.07

.07

.07 1.3 t.

1.01 -

1.50

.00

.31

.31 31

.22

.15

.22

.22

.24

.09

.20

.22

.24

,18

.13

.15

.31 3.5>

1.51 -

2.00

.00

.42

.66

.53

.29

.31

.44

.31

.40

.4L

.37

.33

.26

.29

.37

.62

.33 6.35 2.01 -

3.00

.00 1.08 1.38 1.54 1.36 1.93 1.45 1.82

.1 1.54 1.05 1.05

.83

.8

.75

.77 19.29 3.01 -

4.OO

.00

.73

.51

.59 1.32 1.21

.92 1.36 1.63 2.00 2.44 1.71 1.30 1.10

.70

.73

.83 19.07 4.01 -

5.00

.00 1.19

.33

.79

.70

.66

.79 1.21 1.16 3.03 2.72 2.07

1. IL 1.19 1.19

.75 1.14 20.08 5.01 -

6.00

.00

.57

.11

.13

.31

.53

.18

.55

.5-

.38 1.58 1.27

.48

.35

.46

.57

.53 5.&$

.01..

7.00

.00

.29

.33

.09

.09

.22

.29

.09

-33

.59

-92 1.23

.48

.51

.42

.57

.41-6.92 F

7.01 -

8.00

.00

.20

.09

.02

.15 18

.20

.13

.13

.70

.77

.42

.29

.31

.42

.46

.29 4.75 8.01 -

9.00

.00

.09

.00

.00

.09

.13

.07

.13

.29

.83

.37

.26

.26

.18

.18

.44

.46 3.78 9.01 - 10.00

.00

.00

.00

.00

.o4

.02

.07

.02

.02

.37

.13

.15

.02

.11

.1.

.02

.13 1.23.

GT.

- 10.00

.00

.00

.00

.00 Do

.0

.04

.02

.24

.33

.29

.24

.09

.77

.26

.04

.o4 2.37 TOTALS 2.44 4.90 3.76 4.26 1 4.70 5.25 4.68 5.98

6. C 10.83 10.99 9.03 5.55 5.86 5.12 5.19 5.45 100.00

LSCS-UFSAR TABLE 2.3-9 COMPARISON OF LA SALLE COUTNY STATION 33-FOOT LEVEL TEMPERATURES (0F)

(OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1978) WITH AVERAGE AND EXTREME TEMPERATURE DATA FROM PEORIA (OCTOBER 1976 - SEPTEMBER 1978) AND ARGONNE (1950-1964)

AVERAGE MAXIMUM MINIMUM MONTH*

LA SALLE PEORIA ARGONNE" LA SALLE PEORIA ARGONNE LA SALLE PEORIA ARGONNE January 10.9 11.0 21.0 35.5 39.0 65.0(1950)

-20.5

-25.0

-20.0(1963)

February 20.7 21.2 26.0 59.2 65.0 67.0(1954)

-9.9

-13.0

-16.0(1951)

March 37.7 38.5 33.0 75.6 74.0 79.0(1963)

-2.8

-6.0

-9.0(1960)

April 52.8 54.2 47.0 84.9 86.0 84.0(1962) 27.6 27.0 14.0(1947)

May 64.3 64.5 58.0 92.4 91.0 91.0(1952) 31.4 32.0 27.0(1963)

(1964)

June 69.3 70.8 68.0 93.1 98.0 96.0(1953) 44.5 44.0 34.0(1963)

July 73.8 76.6 71.0 95.0 100.0 101.0 (1956) 52.5 50.0 45.0(1963)

August 70.5 72.3 70.0 88.1 92.0 96.0(1956) 52.7 50.0 41.0(1963)

September 67.1 68.5 63.0 93.3 95.0 96.0(1953) 43.2 41.0 32.0(1956)

October 50.3 49.3 53.0 87.4 87.0 89.0(1963) 25.8 20.0 16.0(1952) 1

_(1962)

November 35.7 36.2 37.0 69.7 71.0 77.0(1950)

-2.4

-2.0

-2.0(1950)

(1958)

December 20.7 21.9 25.0 51.1 54.0 62.0(1951)

-14.3

-11.0

-18.0 (1958)

(1960)

Entire Record~

47.5 48.8 47.7 95.0 1000 101.0(1956)

-20.5

-25.0

-20.0(1963)

Each month consists of data from a combination of 2 months during the period October 1, 1976 through September 30, 1978 Average data for Argonne are based upon the period 1950-1964 as indicated in table title.

Entire record consists of the period October I, 1976 through September 30, 1978 TABLE 2.3-9 REV. 0 - APRIL 1984

ATTACHMENT 6 Supporting Data Files Provided on Compact Disk Files provided on Compact Disk File Name Size LSCS1995.xlsx 745 KB LSCS1996.xlsx 746 KB LSCS1997.xlsx 743 KB LSCS1998.xlsx 744 KB LSCS1999.xlsx 745 KB LSCS2000.xlsx 749 KB LSCS2001.xlsx 748 KB LSCS2002.xlsx 745 KB LSCS2003.xlsx 744 KB LSCS2004.xlsx 747 KB LSCS2005.xlsx 744 KB LSCS2006.xlsx 745 KB LSCS2007.xlsx 745 KB LSCS2008.xlsx 746 KB LSCS2009.xlsx 742 KB LSCS2010.xlsx 689 KB KPIA 1995.txt 4,127 KB KPIA 1996.txt 4,639 KB KPIA 1997.txt 5,496 KB KPIA 1998.txt 5,449 KB KPIA 1999.txt 5,433 KB KPIA 2000.txt 6,249 KB KPIA 2001.txt 6,156 KB KPIA 2002.txt 5,957 KB KPIA 2003.txt 6,331 KB KPIA 2004.txt 6,465 KB KPIA 2005.txt 6,693 KB KPIA 2006.txt 3,722 KB KPIA 2007.txt 3,750 KB KPIA 2008.txt 3,875 KB KPIA 2009.txt 3,950 KB KPIA 2001.txt 3,798 KB pia precip_95_sep_30_10.txt 816 KB PS489661.txt 64,905 KB PIALSL9510.txt 21,301 KB (NON-PROPRIETARY)

Page 1 of 3

ATTACHMENT 6 Supporting Data Files Provided on Compact Disk Files provided on Compact Disk (continued)

File Name Size WW 33-24-30.txt 123 WW 33-24-30-6AM.txt 123 KB WW 33-24-30-6AM2.txt 123 KB WW 0.txt 123 KB WW 3.txt 123 KB WW 6.txt 123 KB WW 9.txt 123 KB WW 12.txt 123 KB WW 15.txt 123 KB WW 18.txt 123 KB WW 21.txt 123 KB WW 0-6.22.txt 123 KB WW 3-6.22.txt 123 KB WW 6-6.22.txt 123 KB VW 18-6.22.txt 123 KB WW 21-6.22.txt 123 KB NetEvapW0.1.txt 116 KB NetEvap 0.2.txt 116 KB Diurnal.txt 123 KB Wind 375.txt 123 KB 30dayevap.txt 115 KB LaSalle UHS.dwg 93 KB Tecplot.plt 157,605 KB ASCIINol.stl.txt 42 KB ASCIINo1.stl.xls 133 KB 97ES083.1.dwg 1,091 KB 97ES083.2.dwg 655 KB LaSalle UHS Heat Load.xls 63 KB M-87 Sheet 1 (Unit 1) 505 KB M-87 Sheet 2 (Unit 1) 462 KB M-766 Sheet 2 (Unit 1) 377 KB M-766 Sheet 3 (Unit 1) 344 KB M-766 Sheet 4 (Unit 1) 345 KB M-766 Sheet 6 (Unit 1) 190 KB M-766 Sheet 7 (Unit 1) 182 KB (NON-PROPRIETARY)

Page 2 of 3

ATTACHMENT 6 Supporting Data Files Provided on Compact Disk Files provided on Compact Disk (continued)

File Name Size M-766 Sheet 8 (Unit 1) 243 KB M-766 Sheet 9 (Unit 1) 271 KB M-766 Sheet 11 (Unit 1) 320 KB M-766 Sheet 12 (Unit 1) 213 KB M-770 Sheet 6 (Unit 1) 399 KB M-830 Sheet 3 (Unit 1) 422 KB M-830 Sheet 5 (Unit 1) 354 KB M-134 Sheet 1 (Unit 2) 556 KB M-134 Sheet 2 (Unit 2) 369 KB M-766 Sheet 5 (Unit 2) 211 KB M-766 Sheet 6 (Unit 2) 191 KB M-766 Sheet 7 (Unit 2) 179 KB M-766 Sheet 8 (Unit 2) 241 KB M-766 Sheet 9 (Unit 2) 270 KB M-766 Sheet 11 (Unit 2) 319 KB M-766 Sheet 12 (Unit 2) 214 KB M-770 Sheet 6 (Unit 2) 399 KB M-930 Sheet 3 (Unit 2) 445 KB M-770 Sheet 11 196 KB S-143 406 KB (NON-PROPRIETARY)

(Compact Disk)

Page 3 of 3