ML18143A911

7/1/1969, Letter Concerning the Plants Storm Flooding and Wave Runup

ML18143A911
Person / Time
Site:	Ginna
Issue date:	07/01/1969
From:	Drake F Rochester Gas & Electric Corp
To:	Morris P US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)
References
Download: ML18143A911 (32)

Text

/I///I/SF

/////////////

ROCHESTER GAS

~

t.'Si'"-"" ll I'ulj ~-~

AND ELECTRIC CORPORATION o

89 EAST AVENUE, ROCHESTER, N.Y. 14604 FRANCIS E. DRAKE JR.

CHAIRMANOF THE DOARD TCI.EPHONC ARK*CODE Tla 546-2700 july 1, 1969 Dr. Peter A. Morris, Director Division of Reactor Licensing United States'Atomic Energy Commission Washington, D. C.

20545

Dear Dr. Morris:

In connection with the flood protection problem, we are submitting Mr. Theodore E. Haeussner's report entitled "Maximum Probable Water Levels for Robert Emmett Ginna Nuclear Plant Site, Lake Ontario", dated june 8, 1969 together with a concurring letter from Richard O. Eaton, P.E.

The conclusions indicate a level of 256.5 ft. will be suf-ficient to protect against wave overtopping of the armor stone breakwater.

After you have reviewed the report we would be happy to have Mr. Eaton and Mr. Haeussner meet with you ifthere are any unresolved questions.

~ZW FED:chv Enclosure Chairman'of the Board oC

~p P@

oi

~C~ ~~

d d +r+8 +g Wz'K o7~

0>l

~

=

E E

I'

~

~

"r

I ',

10812 ADMIRALSWAY POTOMAC, MARYLAND20854 MAILINGADDRESS P. O. BOX 1248 ROCKVILLK,MARYLAND20850 RICHARDO. EATONc P. E.

CONSULTING ENGINEER ecc".Iced cr/tdc added June 12, 1969

~Snb eat:

Rebere Emmett Ginna Nuclear -Power Plant Storm Flooding and

', Wave Runu Mr. William W.-Lowe

Pickard, Lowe and Associates

. Suite

612, 1200 - 18th St.,

N.W.

Washington, D.

C.

20036

Dear Mr. Lowe:

Pursuant to oral requests and information suppli.ed by Mr. Frank Schwoerer of your office, enclosed is a supplemental report on storm flooding and wave runup at the Robert Emmett Ginna nuclear power facility.

I have reviewed the report and find it to be ultra-conservative in all respects.

I have no doubt that a model study, had there been time for it, would have resulted in lower wave runup values.

In lieu of this we have been obliged to disregard various wave attenuating factors which can be accurately predicted in this case only on the basis of model results.

Furthermore, the possibility of a maximum storm concurrently with maximum lake level is unprecedented and extremely remote.

As Housley of the Lake Survey aptly put it, this is a "once in never" type of analysis.

Since e-1 Richard 0. Eaton ROE: w Encl.

TEH Report 6/8/69 O~

/

C4

~

0

~

~

~

e

~

h I

tI

)

J 4 51 t

~

Rp,clatpgr Flip OY...~ - Q /Q

/-d,P Sa.:l 'cs clPe Gated I

Cp

~P, e

ROBERT EMMET GINNA NUCLEAR POWER PLANT

,gg~4

~

DESIGN MAXMIMPROBABLE WATER LEPPK AND ASSOCIATED NAVE ACTION J ~0~

GENERAL.

At the request of Pickard, Lowe asd Associates a detaiied re-evaluation was made of the various components comprising the maximum probable water level at the Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, together with a study of associated wave action involved, The latter inoluded an evaluation of wave height and probable runup along the armorstone breakwall fronting the plant site and in the discharge canal.

A discussion of the parameters

selected, computa-tion procedures

used, and the results and conclusions derived is presented in the following paragraphs, DESIGN CRITERIA'he various factors affecting the mmdmnun probable water level to be expected at the subject plant siteE both singly and in a critical combination, were discussed at length in the previous report by the undersigned, dated March 26, 1968, and willnot be re-peated here.

In that report two critical combinations of lake stage and type storm were evaluated; each related to the meteorological and hydrological characteristics of the area and to historical records which in turn affect both the possibility and probability of their occurrence, If one overlooks the seasonal distribution of observed extratropical storm occurrence in the site area it is possible to postulate such an extreme event occuring over Lake Ontario in the months of highest lake stage occurrence,

namely, June or July.

Based

F It

~

II I

~

a I'I

~

ar

,f*,

~

}r,<<g, I'>> f:P

~h,atg t FIII'Qa'k ~ Ih hfdf 'I,'t) lag >>' f.gal Fta) 'h'I Qa i~ ag a'f I/tf a arf I] aha }~ Itr' "I ~ I,I F t ~I rt ~ ~,'ra at . r I +Q ~ ' ~ htg - gh PF',"f,trt ",q 'i I'ag ~ at" a>> "n} a' c t' g ~ a ig'aa} h,r( i a} -

• 'aa ~

Sat ~ f,>>r a) ar '+ ~ h Ia } 'IT ha )' ~ aa g g)r'a ir ra) f) f'I fy } ~ '..v, '}'tff <h}~') "3ta )gt'a "" "l> a'} 'a at ~ h " hl ~ J

f. III' r "-'<

a Ifa a" r ~ atC)'dl a ) lat IL ) .if '~ ftraf.' ~.-t'a '. aa'I I I' U )" -':') 'FJ'('t f'. ".}.- ~ r a ~ Ft, (a Ipga Fa }'>> ~ g ~ ~ >> r -,a a hh I.>> a fg 'r ar I I a i'"' ~ ! ~ hat a F* ~ I 'll\\ P I 'aj-Ia~ ~I ~ ~'h, th ~, I ~ '3rd a F} w

~ t, rfa rhr I g'h ) ,I 'I;' <<a "~ $ } '" ~ 4 4 'r ~ t ~ 1 ~ 4 t ~ ~ I t h I h r+ Ihr a ~, } ~ ",t 3aah,V q "~, t l 1 ~ h << "1 Ik aa ~ r a a rf, h a) a .far 'I a

on that assumption the following parameters were selected and tested in the reanalysis: a. A desi n wind s eed of.100 m h was used for computing the storm surge component and associated wave action, based on a storm with a pressure gradient of 25 mb/150 nautical miles ~ b. A June lake sta e of 248.05 ft. msl, in con)unction with a design storm occurrence, was assumed to exist at the time of design occurrence, c. A magnum recorded 24-hour rainfall of 4.79 inches (0.40 ft.) was considered to be concurrently applicable d. A ressure effect of 0.27 ft. based on the assumed pressure distribution in the extratropical storm was used. e. A wave effect of 1.00 ft was applied to the computed design storm surge along the lakefront DESIGN STORM SURGE. Procedures and formula recommended in CERO Technical Report No. 4 for computing storm surges on enclosed lakes were employed, The node line of the lake for beginning the setup computations was selected as 23 miles lakeward from the plant site shore area In view of the extreme depths in the lake a variation of a mile or two in that distance would result in a negligible differ-ence in final setup elevation. The incremental pressure effect per mile of fetch was added to the tota1 depth in each fetch segment. The lake elevation at the node line was 248.05 ft. msl, The computed surge elevation at shore was determined to be 249,60 ft. msl, The difference in those elevations, li55 ft, is the storm surge component,

~ "I yl~ <<Iy) I l

0 I <

V)fI aty at J 4~>'Ia> pt )f/'> 4 p ~ a>p '1/ ~ h<< "<<Ia 4 ~ II>>4 ~ ' v V ) II ," 4 >) ~ ~ > ) ~ >> I ~ ~ ~ ) ~ II l ~ +, gy y>> ~ > ~ >y, I ~ ~I y); r a '( ly y II, ~ I ~ 4 ~ ~ s, ~ 4 y I<<III I I >t ~ ~ ~ 4 f. <<>DDt y ~V y<<V yg .1 ~.I ~ aay y "k y I ,4 V>t< <,>) ~, a ~ y,- l<< ~ I, yg ~,, >>py g )Iy ~ pI 4 I I'I k y "I( ~ II I 4 ~ ~ = )4> ~ >4>>> "'I')>>$ )>>DL>> >yl >4 4 ~ 4' ()ay pa g IL ~ ay 4 ~ I ~'> (A(>4, 'fi ~ 4<<IIr 4 ~ I'y V $ I )L>a fg PI>$( >>$ P af ~ >f* y,'a I 4> ~ ~ I ~ ya>) << 'ly ~ g y y ~ a IS 4) I The rainfall component of 0.40 ft. and 1.00 ft for wave effect at shore were added to the surge elevation of 249.60 ft, giving a total maxinaun water level of 251.0 ft. msl. IG summary Lake stage Storm surge Rainfall effect Wave effect 248+05 fto HSL 1,55 ft, 0,40 ft, 1,00 ft, 251+00 fthm'SL A sketch showing..~the offshore bottom profile fronting the plant site together with the nearshore portion of the computed storm-surge set-up profile is shown on ZxMbitl. WAVE CHARACTERISTICS. Using a wind speed of 100 mph, and a fetch of 46 miles in Figure 1-7 of CERC T.R. No. 4 a si ificant wave hei ht Hs, of 28 feet and wave period, T, of 12.3 seconds were obtained. The required duration of 2.8 hours would be easily met by the assumed rate of storm movement in its passage eastward. The wave length Lo 5,12 T2 ~ 773 feet, WAVE RUNUP ON ARMORSTGNE BREAKWALL..Inevaluating wave runup in the plant site area consideration was given to (a) wave action. on the armorstone breakwall and (b) wave action in the discharge canal; For 'condition (a) the higher waves approaching shore willbreak a con-I siderable distance lakeward of the plant site, eg, the significant 1 wave height of 28 feet will break.in 36 feet of water, some 3,000 feet lakeward; a 20-foot wave will break in 26 feet of water, some 2,500 I feet lakeward, etc. The controlling depth for wave effect at shore and on a shore structure is usually selected on the basis of the ,'[ [ap["l<<7'e'e[ a ~ l e p ~H, kef ~ p 0 'I ~ e

• 'tl pele I

'I I I [pl \\ ere t I H ~et a ~ ~ Hf f ~ ~ 4 ~ ~['f e e ~ ", 'll, ~ [ I I lp <<lee ~ ~ HH e t e e e ~ <<[ ~ ~ ~, I I f [i ~ f' 4 e\\ ,I P I 'I << ~ ( ll [ rial [ ~ e et pef H e h, h ~ I' Ple ha << [ I e II II ~ ~ I L e I ~ t l l ~ II ~" et Je, ~ I ~ al4 )te a r ~f ~ I K tre "IH [9f 'I ) ~ ~ t eg p fa ee ll ~ r ~ ~ y e[ 'j af ~ ~.fy e p-e ~ ' pa e ~ '[' ,')" el <<[ re I I~ ~ p e ,i e I beef ee Pal offshore bottom slope, ie., whether steep or gently sloping. Based on the existing bottom slope immediately lakeward of. the plant site ( see Exhibit 1) a distance of about 300 feet lakeward was selected to determine the breaking depth db. At that distance the breaking depth db 9.0 ft, (Elev. 250.5 - 241.5 ft. msl) which in turn was used to determine the breaking wave height Hb, where Hb 0.78 ( db) The value for Hb is 7 feet. Using Equation 1-37 of T.R. No, 4 and Figure 1-84 of that report and equivalent deep water wyve height Ho of 4.1 feet was obtained: Ho (db) ' (9)'.l feet 1,837 3/2 1,837 3/2 12r3 The slope of the armorstone breakwall is 1 on 1,5. Using the para-metric relationship Ho/T2 relating wave runup on rubble-mound slopes to the'equivalent deepwater wave height to period ratio (where Ho/T, ~1 0o027) in Figure 3 12 of T R No 4 a runup relation 4.1 R/H 0.9 was obtained. Using that value with Ho gives a ~rune value of 3.7 feet (R 4.1 x 0.9 3 ~ 7 f'eet) ~ Taking model scale r effect into account, as recommended in T.R. No. 4, an inciease runup of 21$-would be required (using Figure 3-11 of that report), result-ing,in a total wave runup of 4.5 feet, The addition of that value to the peak design storm water level of 2Q.O ft. msl determines the wave runup elevation, ie, the eleva-tion that would be reached on the armorstone breakwall, if extended, That value is 255 5 ft. However, the existing elevation of the armorstone breakwall is 254.0 ft, indioating that the depth of over-R r'low from overtopping would be 1,5 feet per wave, based on a 32';3 4 f /, II ~ I hl ~ ~ 1 ~ ),F 'Q rlt'<< I P ~ -I ~ >>g j PCP 4 ~ )I,I yh) 'I I I.' 4 h II FJ ~I)I hf r f<<F ~ ~ ff h +," P ~ tl ~ ~ ~ th)>> I r>> f t) ~ 4 ~ I I 4>> I F I ~" ~ ~ I, FC flit ~f( f f ~

!"341..'

II 4 4 ~ <<(>> C .',".)~'! IF '., >I ', >> f'", I>> '4 I q* >>P It FP4 ~ ~ ~ FP 'Ct'I" ~4 >> ~ Ih lf F, ) ~ I ~ ~ ~ t ~, Ih P -if P 4 4

t. ~

') hl ttM'"h f C, ~ f h t I !>>f I I I>>', ) F ~ << ~ >>4 P ~ t,l, ~I, ~ 4 ~ F JV F I I Jh>>I ~ )I F +r/ ~ Ct f second wave. It is quite possible that lower period waves could also be generated in the lake during the design storm resulting in I occasional runup values on the order of 5 to 5.5 feet. Taking those conditions into account would result in an increase in wave runu elevation to as hi h as 256 5 feet msl. At that elevation the depth of. overflow per wave over the top of the existing armorstone breakwall,could be as much as 2.5 feet l r WAVE ACTION IN THE DISCHARGE CANAL. Waves entering the discharge canal are affected by several factors~ l. Limiting depths of water adjacent to the discharge channel in the lake,. 2. The approach direction of wave crests, 3, The configuration of the canal, its depth, side slopes and length. The lake bottom at the exit of the discharge canal is at a shallower depth than the bottom at the canal ( 238 ft. NSL) ~ No excavation of the lake bottom is intended. Some erosion of the bottom to form a channel extending outward into the lake from the discharge canal is

expected, especially during periods of low water level.

There will probably also be silt deposition into this channel during periods of high water level. Because of the shallower water depths on each 'side of the discharge channel in the lake wave approach is limited to the physical alinement of that channel, that is, the critical wave approach direction must be directly into the channel and canal. Waves approaching at some angle to the canal alinement will break hg fl ~ K 4 4 ~ 4 4 Eh>> t ~ 14 I I L ~ ~ lh KV ~ 4)>> (44' ~ 4 4 I 4 1 4' 4

• 'ktl 1

~ I I ~" 4 ~ hy) I l 4 I fI 4 E:hhf)

• ~

)f)hf>> I ~ ~'h I 'I I 1 ~ '>> E j ')4) lh 'J I 4 4 ~ 4 'I 4I -4>> h ~ 'I I C 4 ~ h' ~ 4 4 h 4I 4 I,l ff'1 1 )>>I>> 1 1 '1* 4K I K 4 ~ 'I ~ ~ I hh ~ 1 vf 4 h 44 ) ~ ~ )h(4 I ~ 4 4 ~ 4 t lflh )>> >>1>>$ I K ~ 1 th ~ I 4> ~ ) hh hh ~ s on or before reaching the concrete plant channel, A conservatively high estimate of the depth of water which will control the height f of waves directly entering the discharge canal during the design N storm would be 13 feet (251a0 - 238,0 ft.) ~ The entrance channel II portion of the canal has 1 on 1 side slopes, extending from elevation 253 ' ft, MSL down to 238 ft. MSL. The entry area for waves which will reach and pass unbroken into'the canal is thus restricted to about a 13-foot bottom width. Wave crests entering the canal will be affected by side friction of the sloping canal banks, The break-ing wave, Hb, for a 13 foot depth is about 10 feet (Oe78 x 13 N 10.14 ft.)~ Waves of that height entering the canal willbe affected I'y side friction and slightly reduced. It is conservatively estimated that a 9-foot wave can be postulated to reach and impinge on the vertical canal wall opposite the canal entrance. The'height of that wave above the design water level of 251.0 ft. msl will be 5,4 feet (0.6 x 9.0) or, at elevation 256.g ft. msl -- some 3 feet above the crest of the discharge canal wali'hat wall is at a 45 degree angle to the wave crest and wQ.l cause a portion of the wave energy to be ~ reflected at a right angle to the direction of wave motion, The estimated wave runup on the wall is discussed below. WAVE RUNUP IN THE DISCHARGE CANAL. As noted above a 9-foot wave will have some 3 feet of its crest elevation above the crown elevation of the existing canal wali'ue to the side slopes of the canal walls, waves entering the canal weal be affected by the decreasing depths along the walls. Only the center'portion'f the canal will sustain U U,ty ~ ~ 'I,UL gg I U,t I, Ik I' ~ ), (U~ Ut IU << I ~ ~ /e IV a ~ N 4( '4 . 4tl N 4 U NLRIr 4 N ( N 4( ~ ) 4 ]4(Q II 4 ~ ( II) ~ ( a ~N( I 4 4 gl(N I'g i NN ~ a 4" ~ UNI I N N I ~ I, I(t, 'll 4 ~ I ~ ( '4 It i ~ ~ b, ( ~ "J I 7 I( , (' ~ N I I ~ gU (aat p U> C lsr' ( IW a ~ 4 V I 4 ~ <<a ~ 4 ~ Ua 4 ~ ~ (a ~ U'. If U 4 W Nt( 4(" <<a ~, ~ ~ L 4, UNN ~ I N r ~ ) vaa ji ~ = ~ .,I ( f d I( NU wave action unbroken, On reaching the 45 degreeewall the wave crest will break progressively with distance along the wall, in a curling action. Some reflection will occur in the fora of low waves or ripples which will move laterally westward down and across the canal, The height of wave runup, or runup elevation, that will be reached for this set of conditions is difficult to determine, If the vertical canal wall was located normal to the direction of wave approach wave runup would occur in the form of "clapotis" ~ For non-breaking wave conditions, ie., where the depth of water at a structure is 1$ times the wave height (which applies in this case) the Sainflou 'method of determining clapotis and wave forces is recommended in GERC T.R. No. 4. That method was used as a trial basis to calculate the height and elevation of clapotis, ~asscmin the vertical wall i'ace wes normal to the direction of wave approach. That trial computation is demonstrated on Exhibit 2. The full height of clapotis for a 9-foot wave height was calculated to be 10,22 feet, or to elevation 261 22 ft, msl. Paragraph 4.25 of T.R. No, 4 relates to the effect of the angle of wave approach on wave forces. Using the formulas and procedures given in Figure 4-8 of that report with a wall at a 45 angle to wave approach direction the component of wave force normal to the wall per unit length of, wall would be reduced by a factor of 0.5, primarily because of the deflection and reflection effects of the wall There are no 'hysical test data'nown. to the undersigned which would indicate conclusively that the wave runup component would also be reduced by a factor 'of 0,5 however, some reduction must logically occur. If the factor 0.5 is applicable to clapotis the runup height l 44 F P(IKE l, ~ g t FKIEKJ Qfy,l 4 J ~ 4) 1J"' ~ IE I ~Fl f l 44%1 ~ I[ g'.";,Et FN!Kl 4 ~y,' 4, "tf P ~) F,K KK' ~'I EF Jg( 4 44 ,4'j'$ 6 4, eg( ~ ]( t,. II ~ E~ 0 FE E.E ~ 44, Kf 4 )lf 'll '..4 4'0 K44 I F ~ I,fg ,', ~ Ew ~ ll 4 ~ tl 4 F J I>> g ~ 4, I C 1 ~ 4 \\ 114 4 I fE ~ 4 ~ 41 4, ll 1 I ,C, EK EAK 4 f1 I 44 ~4 4 4 ll 4 ~ 4 44 ~ 4. ~ 4 1 I F 4 JI ~ 4~ 44 4 ~ I 4" would be lowered to about 5+ feet, reaching a non-overtopping eleva-tion of about 257 feet msl. As noted above, reflected waves are expected to occur as a result of the deflective action of the angle of the canal wall to wave crest approach, The reflected waves would undoubtedly be of lesser height than the origina1 waves enter-ing the canal, possibly on the order of half the initial wave height~ or about 4 to.5 feet. Refle'cted waves would-move in west and north- ~ 'westerly directions across the canal. Llhiilesthe effect of the 'foot-bridge and fishscreen across the canal on reflected waves passing those structures cannot be accurately determined it is quite probable that they would serve to either break or further reduce wave heights Any waves that might reach the westward end of the canal would there-fore be relatively low in height; any splashover or wave wash over the canal wall would be small and could be expected to drain back to the canal through the 24-inch culvert NAVE OVERTOPPING. It is my understanding that Rochester Gas & Electric Company will build up the elevation. at the armorstone wall to prevent wave overtopping of the wall. It remains only to consider waves that may directly enter the discharge canal and overtop the rear wall of the canal. Reference Drawing No, 33013-352, showing the final topo-graphy in the plant site area, roadway elevations etc., indicates that wave overflow of the discharge canal would tend to pond in the low areas (Elev. 253,0 ft. NSL) on each side of the Screen House. The accumulated depth of overflow that would be reached in the plant area is conjectural because constant runoff to the lake would occur h l h It() ~ I "ICFQI ~, ~F I . 't 'llyy (~ ~ IC~ '(l II yy h yt ". )t ~ ) kj >> g r Q ,I 'V g e ~ (.Ol () ',((I, yy I ~V I ytAV ~tJ tl 'Ip eg( I ~ 'v f 't f'n I y b(.;"he ee "Vb l f,e I g e'h "'h)c'jl"'(1 I ) I ) Ih'hg ~ bh fr rlrh ~ I hem ~ )

r. I'C',

O'tveht' I'c Fte rh ~ <<t t "t f t .I-h f g((hhg .'f,h m f h>>f( eh I ~fQ'f ~ r, hy eh ')m- ~ ht k'I 'I>> h I'I h r 1 ~ V h I ~ m ~.g hit g< hy qf,t F m ~ h f'( 5 ~ I hm( k F F 't k ~fr F't hl h ~ ' ~ h I ~ h rb k't II I >> "Ir'h II ~') f I) FIt ~ .'I, I, I c I eg(b 'V ~ I ~ mt by means of the discharge'anal and the 24-inch drainage pipes Assuming wave periods of 10-12 seconds the total number of waves overtopping in the critical hour of peak storm water level could abc on the order of 300 to 360 waves, Based on the above reference drawing the length of overtopping area along the rear wall at the discharge canal would be about 30 feet. An estimation of the volume of wave overtopping of the canal wall, angled at 45 degrees to wave approach direction, would be highly suspect since there is no known method or basis for such a determination. However, it is believed that the volume would be smaU. in comparison with the flow capacity of the paths available for drainage back to the lake. EXTREME LOW WATER LEVEL. The assumptions, criteria, determinations and results of the study contained in the report submitted March 26, 1968 are considered adequate and applicable Wind speeds on the order of 90-95 mph were used in that analysis; the use of 100 mph I winds would lower the extreme low water elevation given in that r report to about elevation 242.0 ft. msl. CONGE USIONS; ./ Based, on the above reanalysis the following conclusions are drawn: 1. That an unusual occurrence of an extratropical storm across Lake Ontario in June or July coincident with a lake stage of 248.05 ft. msl and an associated 24-hour rainfall of 4,79 inches represents a critical combination of conditions for determining probable maximum design storm water-level conditions. $eee, k Ii 'I ~ s1 I ~ ~ $ [ 1 (Il 11 el ~ 'I ) I 1" ~ i, el ~ 1 11 111 ~ I r 11 1 r 1 1e 11 'II ~ 1 6 ~ I'1 V 1 el ~ 1 I~ 1'Pgl') ~ Pe I 7(ee 'ik t Ill< JI <<'(1 , ~','0 ~ ir~ 1 S kl k 'e ~ rll k 1'e 1 ~ 'I 1'1 1 II rk II 1 11 e se ~ ~ ~ee 1 r ~ ee kg PS,: 1'I ~. peg - elg 1 I ~ ~ 1 ~" I ~ - P I Pf1 ~ ~ pied g= ",'11 Ig er.((1>", ~ - ee I ~, ril rll I ~ r eil es 1 I kr E, e, kk 11 egjr 1 ge I ', ~ jg rg (e ) f'eer 2 ~ That the probable maximum water level to be expected at the Robert Emmet Ginna Nuclear Plant Site during such an event will reach elevation 251.0 ft. msl. 3 ~ That associated wave action a1ong the existing armorstone break-wall fronting the plant site will result in wave runup to an eleya-tion as high as 256,5 ft msl, assuming thewall extended on a l to i+5 slope ~ 4. That the amount of wave overtopping along the short reach of discharge canal wall, angled at 45 degrees to wave approach,

would, be relatively small compared with the capacity of avai1able paths for drainage back to the lake and therefore ponding in the plant site I

area resulting from this overflow would be negligible. 5, That the Extreme Low Water Level to be expected at the plant site intake is on the order of 242.0 ft. NSL. Submitted by, Theodore ~ Haeussner Hydraulic Engineer Consultant Jacksonville, Florida June 8, 1969 '10 0 1 0 a 0 ~ ~ ~ 4 ~ k ~ 4 1 ~ I l. lake Ontario - Offshore depth profile and magnum probable water level. / 2. Glapotis for waves normal to a vertical wall: Effect of wall angle on wave approach. / s<< 'alh g I I g'l4) t,,f',) tg 'l < ) ) 3 x 5 TQ V2 INCH 46 0863 >>A rg'QI r litt": I 5 9 5 5 Kf:Vf1'I.L 8 If:MEfrCO, ,I I jf'2RE GONP -I j I 1 Ii O=O =-R,O PT D.vGI.i-O.'3P 1+ll O 'KM ,BA 'TZD~ D QM 'C, URES'. 1>>rg ADD

3. AM D')

JPI 'g='0 HO +1 j=I =I fAX 1 L ~+/ PkdwVCiC k Zl'4 ~69 ~~ J QQQ g IE/M< ~iXZiQ< &~4QhVH< ~> VPS QZ T>~QQ~ ~,V~V'Q Z4VR Oit.LVNjQ P~ O'J )t 'a C 0 A> kg 4 4".j 8 P. t gP ))) JF yl g/~~ ~h, $ N/ fl/ x'a~:~ c"'c x'z'v' (s"s'=..;.~ x) S'ZM9 M~ "@PAL"'"JXQP VWCP'~iB 8 d." V' ~+~ >~ 33"~D Q$ '<<PQjfg Qg TV.gpgf ~TRJf~ ',(lit'P p)4)% ga ~a~ ~ 'vw ~ rs tea ~ze, f ewsyr 5 s:) ~Q'n Z'8KiA'Jv.f Sh 'Q ~J G'3~bQQRB,> /"',X9~ Ngt 9,". 4 ~ 1 I <c h h fi OG 1 ihl Xs ii D 03 u hh 03 a 9 hh hhh<<o hf h3Z &i el eg ~< l 0 Id ~ L4f hW W, I' i h FRO hlfh h,.i ",,ii 'll ',-'CA h i hi fiick I I, ,'Ji, I I h I'hl I'LA hJ il gf h I i I I'I LI li WC '-I--l ','-'hH Ii I R MA tP ihfA hh ~) [--8 I Ii~', L +h 1 f LJJ..I W n ig ANG B

(

ILW J f 0 evati ydti 'o 4~( I ' xdeg Ji 'f ~one 8& ia $j 'tIth ECJ l'eetwj l 25c ~l<e n lofi I ,'X'ap I J J:i 'A "l on J. I R re:Rn if A yorPf .JO X )iSI D TICAL i3,'f 0 r VB X D Dh-P D-COm PR()AC h I 330I. ,, cenC a o+ 99-I 3A I, h ii I T h <- 0'-. 22-h VA'L'L 1 hl I, f'

UQVB, ili r,,',!

h ) 'do xcei ( 'otto D-"'8',g 0,;70 0 I ',Ihgz e ~hoor one'n4 of m e q o h illh 1, j EXHIBIT 2 h 4 f4' ,h iv.o'- h hh TI, l: h I I ~ i, ~ be>: $.RK ~ 'Ik 9 ~Et >t'x EX ~ 6 8'x5HA IQ '~',0 TpÃsig I I ~~99+i $7'7 <'T.9 Keg ~ gZ I , -35>~g(;,0 ~ 'g <<GbXQ,O = g~<,G ~Vl:g.0 -.Ae; S ,coca 6~6 - Z t Nc w>cps 'gognoc O'Xrfqo tc P4g>> oR . (388 .~"k Vof:8 ~ &Pc.} H J C'. c7i'lc> "dX E 0: Qf 0, Jg,.< 5'Pqo lPR "so% S~+L'- yf fw Y gW ,iA gC 959;> SR,L + OiLHR g6 10 Qoktsvefi~ al'i+7>~F70 <0 &vflU>t'p .~X SS.L~.

• e+ eC.ees-Pe">>;. N,94 " SSqL aiÃiqrLQ 2e 0::evQ

~ 'gal g iiQ gg 4 gg tg,o'i'..8,'5'd .91:4 I-".OR'~) t ~ QA<4 IAN"..SPIV A (~T,'IAHHQN HHVAM h(8 Q>TK>QQ ~ AM W ~t~MMP a J 't.",hM.IAP.AQ ~ 8 ddUXa 'I.c svrv 'Xc gled.,c eo dqobs6$ a7. = X VAVoC ~ 6 A~Q <~g ~ 8 ,6 528 8 ~ A, Cfear c4 leicca (5'.) eavok ov~.,c OveaaqmaJ 'Pi a~ id ~ 7'('7+0 X SL <'8 ~" alS R ~ >P, ,'ll C' )JN",P. ~ TJ~R ~ a "aI~". 8 ~ o ada s a"o 8 ~ ~F. coca'i, ~vs'M '<<c dm)nojac9 gH megW.>.C ~ ~H ~ <Lax. '<e ~QpeoL, Pie~z xeq LXsv M> nN L's.area .PffYI'( HOAOH9AA P (~l.ot'..8.T 8-3..0L'c was) hl)AOS~~A AVE V3 ~li'DPA ~EEArf 80 xOSI'i8 tIr>> gI'gy,y OO 0 DEJ'/SA7 SPY!1 54ÃE Cdg1P EdbSX7 HAWkV rreiiA uci a~i gop~z-p a~wer /I/dr/c 8i~c' ~'i<<~ = jda mPh Wi =a9Ecr ~asz g7; Ql. x l QL4~x Eg f7 RSl-zg,o 22 o.S 8/7 528 sz7 >$ 8 5 72. wFz DES .bS-5 C7/ Sd'z c 7h 487 629 EX3 u3$ ggZ 3zd sr~ S3' g,od' /5/ //88' w2 8/ ZZ r/ D I o,dg did Z o,dZ o,o& d,dZ d, 0 2-d,dZ d.ag Oo/ dO/ d.d/ cho/ ~/9 o2. 597.oz W7z'oz 4/pi 02-SS Xoz cps, o2 57k;o2 C,g~.d2 s-gI.dZ 4 5'H'dZ SIC, o/ z,rd,o/ zoI.o/ /5/, d/ SS'/ 37,d/ //, d/ alp u2 $37oC <72 // w-~JR b7d. Z3 6 7~,27 C&s.3o s-8'8.3F qg9zc 3EZ'8 f zrc. y'o sog'. d/ /K/ d/'g, og

87. /S-

/Z. dE KOz ddb loioo-0 /d,dd 3 /O.d~d 5 dd-0 /d, usa gO, %78 i 637 ,o8l ,a38 ,oz/ ,o9f .oS E , o+7 z YI.oft .ogZ zest-/gZ 2/8', rIP'/75 .Z/6 sHb'. zr-3 ~gg. z'.4 0 ' p/d'/E.?i I / oft Zc4g afar. /.s->8'z4C zHAzPc'iIZ s YS'Z8 2' san zMI: 8/"o .s9l syE. </c'agan'wK<<g'CPZ ~WE,Yg~ ,S Oo Zgp'.SS o , sd'o

ZYE, t'.go'i.55

) (zing 6o ) ~ ~ s ~ ~}}