ML19308D642

Verification Study of Dames & Moore Hurricane Storm Surge Model.

ML19308D642
Person / Time
Site:	Crystal River
Issue date:	07/13/1973
From:	DAMES & MOORE
To:
Shared Package
ML19308D641	List: ML19308D640 ML19308D642
References
9602-004-27, 9602-4-27, NUDOCS 8003090142
Download: ML19308D642 (405)

Text

_.

\,

hNN !?

NfCf vfd #

f .

AUG 1 1973 Q' u u ,. % '

8%unar .

c 8banne REPORT S

VERIFICATION STUDY p ,

OF DAMES & MdORE'S ""*'""'" '

HURRICANE STORM SURGE MODEL i

l l

WITH APPLICATION TO CRYS 7.AI RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR PLANT  ;

CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA '

FOR l

FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION BY DAMES & MOORE July 13, 1973 Los Angeles, California Job No. 9602-004-27 i

\.

-302 i

8003090 $ % k 5381 -

-.. . ._ .._ - - ~ _ -

TABLE OF CONTENTS

(

PAGE

SUMMARY

s-1 CONCLUSIONS C-1

1. INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 General 2 1.2 Purpose 2 1.3 History 4

1.4 Scope ,

6

2. FORMULATION OF THE MODEL 2.1 Analytic Description 2.2 Dames & Moore Model 10

3. NUtiERICAL ACCURACY OF STORM SURGE PROGRAM 14 3.1 Case 1 17 3.2 Case 2 20

4. CALIBRATION WITH FIELD DATA 25 4.1 Purpose 25 l

4.2 Scope, 25 4.3 Field Data 25 I

\

4.3.1 General 25 4.3.2 Hurricane Carla, September 9-12, 1961 27 4.3.2.1 Pleasure Pier, Galveston, Texas 27 4.3.2.2 U.S. Coast Guard Station, Sabine Pass, Texas 31 4.3.3 Hurricane Audrey, June 27, 1957, Eugene Is., La. 32 4.3.4 Hurricane of October 3, 1949, Freeport, Texas 33 4.3.5 Hurricane Carol, August 31, 1954, Narragansett 34

, Bay, Rhode Island b

l

.-. - - l

f f' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 4.3.6 Hurricane Camille, August 17-18, 1969, 36 Biloxi, Mississippi' 4.4 Calibration 38 4.4.1 Introduction 38 4.4.2 Program Modification 40 4.4.3 Input 41 .

4.4.4 Output 42 4.4.5 Method of Varying Input Parameters 43 4.4.6 Criteria for Determining a "Best Fit" Condition 44 4.4.7 Results for Each Traverse 45

(

4.4.7.1 Hurricane Carla - Galveston Traverse 47 4.4.7.2 Hurricane Carla - Sabine Pass Traverse 52 '

4.4.7.3 Hurricane Audrey - Eugene Island Traverse 57 4.4.7.4 Hurricane of October 3, 1949 - Freeport 60 Traverse 1

4.4.7.5 Hurricane Carol - Narragansett Bay Traverse 62 4.4.8 Evaluation Methodology 64

_ummary of Results for Investigated Hydrographs 4.4.9 67 4.4.10 Hurricane Camille - Biloxi Traverse 69

5.

SUMMARY

OF STORM SURGE MODEL VERIFICATION 71

6. CRYSTAL RIVER FLOOD STUDY 73 6.1 Introduction 73 6.2 Purpose 74 6.3 Scope 75 l

f' TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE 6.4 Probable Maximum Stillwater Levels 75 6.4.1 General 75 6.4.2 Probable Maximum Hurricane Parameters 76 6.4.3 Procedures 83

.6.4.4 Results 84 6.5 Wind Generated Waves 85 6.5.1 General 85 6.5.2 Deepwater Waves 85 6.5.3 Shallow Water Waves 86 6.5.4 Design Waves 87 6.6 Wave Runup 88 6.7 Minimum Stillwater Level 90 6.8 Conclusions 92 LIST OF REFERENCES LIST OF APPENDICES A. Correspondence B. Dames & Moore Ccmputer Model Description C. Results from Analytic Test Cases  !

D. Data Used for the Verification Study E. Description of and Output from Program AATCH l

F. Results for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant '

k l

i l

LIST OF TABLES PAGE I. Results for Galveston Traverse - Surge Only 48 Condition II. Results for Galveston Traverse - Dynamic Tide 49 Condition

'III. "Best Fit" Conditions for Galvestion Traverse 50

+

IV. Results for Sabine Pass Traverse - Surge 53 Only condition ,

V. Results for Sabine Pass Traverse - Dynamic Tide 54 Condition VI. "Best Fit" Conditions for Sabine Pass Traverse 56 VII. Results for Eugene Island Traverse - Dynamic 58 Tide Conditions

( VIII. "Best Fit" Conditions for Eugene Island Traverse 59 IX. Results for Freeport Traverse - Surge Only 61 Condition X. Results for Narragansett Bay Traverse - Dynamic 63 Tide Condition XI. Summary of "Best Fit" Conditions for Investigated 67 Hydrographs 6

(..

t

<- +.w u e e + - - e- ~w... . . , , . , . , . , ~ ,. _ _ .

/ LIST OF FIGURES

1. Geometry for Case 1 l

2. Results for Analytical Test Case 1, Run 1

\

3. Geometry for Case 2 l

4. Results for Analytical Test Case 2, Run 1

5. Results for Analytical Test Case 2, Run 2

6. Orientation of Galveston, Sabine Pass, and -

Freeport Traverses

7. Offshore Depth Profile - Galveston Traverse

8. Nearshore Depth Profile - Galveston Traverse

9. Predicted Tides - Pleasure Pier Galveston, Texas

10. Tide Datums - Pleasure Pier Galveston, Texas

11. Location of Sabine Pass Gage Relative to Sabine Pass Traverse

12. Offshore Depth Profile - Sabine Pass Traverse

13. Nearshore Depth Profile - Sabine Pass Traverse

14. Predicted Tides - U.S. Coast Guard Station, Sabine Pass, Texas 15.- Tide Datums - Sabine Pass, Texas

16. Orientation of Eugene Island and Biloxi Traverses

17. Offshore Depth Profile - Eugene Island Traverse

18. Nearshore Depth-Profile - Eugene Island Traverse

19. Location of Brazos River Gage Relative to Freeport Traverse

20. Offshore Depth Profile - Freeport Traverse

21. Nearshore Depth Profile - Freeport Traverse l

I

~

7 LIST OF FIGURES

22. Orientation of Narragansett Bay Traverse

23. Location of Newport Gage Relative to Narragansett

Bay Traverse

24. Offshore Depth Profile - Narragansett Bay Traverse

25. Nearshore Depth Profile - Narragansett Bay Traverse

26. Offshore Depth Profile - Biloxi Traverse .

27. Nearshore Depth Profile - Biloxi Traverse

26. "Best Fit" Condition for Galveston Traverse, Run B23

29. "Best Fit" Condition for Sabine Pass Traverse, Run C8014C

( 30. Site Location - Crystal River Unit 3

31. Plot Plan - Crystal River Unit 3

32. PMH Path

33. Astronomical Tidal Cycle

34. Offshore Depth Profile - Crystal River Traverse

35. Nearshore Depth Profile - Crystal River Traverse

36. Storm Surge Hydrograph

37. Wind and Wave Characteristics Versus Time

38. Design Waves and Water Levels Versus Time

39. Site Cross Section AA I

(

. - . . _ _,m.

~

S-1

SUMMARY

~

This report has been prepared in response to the U.S.

Atomic Energy Commission's letter of March 12, to the Florida Power Corporation (Appendix A) . The results of a comprehensive verification study for Dames & Moore's hurricane storm surge model and computer program are presented in this report. The 1

model and associated program varies from that used by the Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC) in the following respects: The numerics upon which the computer program is

, based and the means by which the interaction between the sur-face winds and the water surface are modeled. This verifi-cation study was directed at resolution of these two issues and includes the application of the calibrated hurricane model

~

to calculate the Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH) storm surge elevation at the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant.

The numerical schemes used in the two programs were tested by comparing the program results to theoretical results for several hypothetical storm surge problems for which analyti-cal. solutions could be obtained. It was shown that the program of Dames & Moore' exhibits negligible error for the cases inves-I tigated. The output from CERC's program, however, was shown to exhibit significant errors in certain cases.

The mathematical form of the surface wind interaction was obtained by referral to work of other investigators.

It was shown that-the wind stress parameter is a function

( of surface wind speed.and local barometric pressure. Inherent 1

..w-%%-  :.waw,g,

_e.m ...,,+w.

7 * * -

S-2 in the wind stress parameter are two constants whose range of values are estimated on the basis of referenced investiga-tions. The bulk of this study was devoted to a determination of these constants by correlation of Dames & Moore's surge program to hurricane data of record.

Finally, using a verified Dames & Moore hurricane storm surge model, a PMH storm surge elevation of +29.4 feet MLW was calculated for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant. The resulting wave generation and flood elevations resulting from the PMH were also calculated for Crystal i River.

(

( *Mean Low Water

'*=N- '.*14 +

• 4ee,--. ..sm ,___ ,

C-1 CONCLUSIONS This study was undertaken to verify the Dames

& Moore hurricane' storm surge computer model. It was shown in this study that the Dames & Moore model reproduces known theoretical solutions with a very high degree of accuracy.

Therefore, the' numerics of the model itself are highly accurate in reproducing known analytical solutions, thus giving confidence in the ability of the model to accurately predict Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH) storm surges.

The historical hurricane data received from the U.S.-Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) and used in calibration of the Dames & Moore hurricane model was deficient in quantity and quality due to the following reasons:

(

1. There was erroneous information on tidal datum planes and astronomical tides experienced during the hurricanes' existence.

'l 2. Three of the supplied recorded storm surge hydrographs were for locations in bays or channels inland from the open coast. Since the purpose of the study was to calibrate the hurricane model for the prediction of open coast storm surge, calibrating to inland hydrographs is misleading. Sufficient infor-mation was neither available nor supplied to determine how the open coast surge hydrograph

(

em~~-~- -mm. - - . . ~ -- v . , - , ,

g -p7. g m ,y--- y- 4**-

C-2

' would be modified for the effects of convergence, friction, etc., and thus relate the open coast surge hydrographs to the inland hydrographs.

3. Two of the hurricanes used for calibration had peak storm surge elevations obtained from debris marks which included the effects of wave-induced runup. Dames & Moore's model is not designed to calculate storm surge that includes the effects of wave-induced runup; it is not possible to accurately determine how much the storm surge would be increased due to wave runup during these hurricanes.

4. Two of the five hurricanes used for calibration k had insufficient wind information to accurately define the wind field during the- occurrence of the maximum surge.

The supplied historical hurricane data was improved by Dames & Moore whenever possible by contacting various gov-ernment agencies and individuals knowledgeable in the field of hurricane analysis. Considering that the numerics of Dames &

Moore's model are sound, the calibration of the model is as accurate'as possible consistent with-the quality and quantity of existing historical hurricane data.

A major consideration in the prediction of PMH storm surge elevations is the conservatism of the PMH input parameters.

The selection of the various PMH parameters is based on an f  ;

l l

l

. - ~ .~

I

C-3 f accepted reference published by the U.S. Weather Bureau. In se-lecting the critical combination of these parameters, a PMH is hypothesized whose occurrence is rather improbable. The PMH storm assumes the most critical combination of radius to maxi-mum winds, difference between asymptotic and central pressure, forward translational speed, maximum wind speed,~ and the path the hurricane takes in traveling across the continental shelf to the shoreline. In addition it is assumed that the maximum generated open coast storm surge is coincident with the highest -

possible astronomical tide.

For the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant flood study, Dames & Moore has made concessions on two previously disputed PMH input criteria; a value of 0.6 foot initial surge and a wind

(~ field reduction starting two miles offshore are now used.

Although the bottom friction coefficient was calibrated in this study, both Dames & Moore (D&M) and AEC used the same value for Crystal River. Therefore, all PMH parameters and associated j criteria (not including calibration parameters) are exactly the same as that used by the AEC and are therefore, as conservative.

Thus, the difference of four feet between the D&M's and the AEC's calculated maximum surge values at Crystal River are a result.of the accuracy of the model's numerics in calcu-lating storm surge and the accuracy of the calibrated wind stress coefficient in the model. As a result of the accuracy of Dames & Moore's program numerics, the conservative n&ture of the input parameters, and the best available historical I

l-l 1

- C-4 7 ,f - hurricane data for use'in calibration, the calculated PMH storm  ;

i surge elevation of 29.4 feet MLW at the Crystal River Unit 3 l Nuclear Plant is considered conservative.

T e

(

O

^ -"=a%= %_

'_y -- m,.-

• S N* h- , ,

' #" 'M _

as mapedi _

5.*e Ea M

s.

m

, s' e

e

,~

REPORT VERIFICATION STUDY OF DAMES & MOORE'S HURRICANE STORM SURGE MODEL WITH APPLICATION TO CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 NUCLEAR PLANT CRYSTAL RIVER, FLORIDA FOR FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION

1. INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of Dames & Moore's

• hurricane storm surge. computer model verification study for the Crystal' River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant, Crystal River, Florida.

Included in the verification study was the calibration of D&M's model to several specific historical hurricanes. Calibration

( was performed for the generic use of this model for calculat-ing hurricane storm surge. The coefficients used for calibra-tion were the surface wind stress coefficients and the bottom friction coefficient. Greater emphasis was placed on ascer-  !

taining the surface wind stress coefficients. The validity of the model's numerics were also reviewed by comparing the model with known analytic solutions.

The historical hurricane data supplied by the AEC was used for calibration. However, since this data was lack-ing in quantity and quality, attempts were made to improve on this data wherever possible by contacting other agencies such l as the National Ocean Survey, National Climatological Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and U.S.

t Corps of Engineers districts.

2 r 1.1 GENERAL This comprehensive verification study was initiated for-the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant at the request of Florida Power Corporation since the AEC's calculated Probable Maximum Hurricane (PMH) storm surge elevation was 3.8 feet higher than the value calculated by Dames & Moore. Also, in the generic application of D&M's model, a smaller value of I

surge is consistently calculated relative to that obtained by use of CERC's model. The main difference between the PMH storm -

surge elevations at Crystal River calculated by Dames & Moore and the AEC is due to the numerics of the two models and the expression incorporated for the wind stress coefficient in the two models.

( l.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to verify the D&M com-puter hurricane model for the calculation of PMH storm surge elevations. I 1.3 HISTORY I The Dames & Moore report titled " Hurricane Study, Crystal River Nuclear Station, Crystal River, Florida for Florida Power Corporation, October 16, 1972," and filed with

- the Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 in Amendment 23 as

- Appendix 2C, recommended a PMH storm surge elevation of 29.6 feet MLW. This was based on D&M's hurricane model at that l time (Reference 1); on storm parameters from Reference 2 for a radius to maximum winds of 14 nautical miles and a high

- speed of translation of 20 knots; on a two-foot reduction in o - .m. w . ..# -_.m . . . _ + . . _ _ . . ..,+-m_.

m. -._.. .-

.o. , ..w.

- - ~ - - ~~ - ' - - -

3 r

water level due'to the overland flooding; and on the other parameters and criteria as' listed in Reference 1.

The AEC did not accept the Dames & Moore PMH storm surge elevation for the following reasons:

1. The AEC stated that an initial rise of 0.6 feet ,

attributed to a sea-level anomaly estimated by comparing recorded and predicted tides should have been included. A value of 0 feet was used; it has been the opinion of Dames & Moore that any I

initial rise at this site would be attributed i

solely to atmospheric pressure patterns in the

, adjacent area and wind effects.

. 2. The AEC stated'that the surface wind speed reduc-i' 1

tions should initiate at two miles offshore, in-1 stead of three miles as was used in the study.

L

3. The AEC disagreed with the expression used for the surface wind stress coefficient.

The AEC consultan4 CERC, calculated a PMH storm surge elevation at Crystal River of 33.4 feet MLW allowing for a two-foot reduction in water level due to overland flooding.

The foregoing three questions raised by the AEC were discussed'in a preliminary meeting on February 1, 1973, in

.Bethesda, Maryland, with the AEC, CERC, Dames & Moore, Florida

Power Corporation,-and Gilbert Associates (Florida Power's A&E).

A subsequent meeting was held on February 15, 1973, in f .

E+. _ ,- n w v.e.--- ,. n - .n.. _ n ann.,._,-

.-...- m w.a w . _

-e,,,,..,,-. ,.

4

( Washington, D.C. at CERC headquarters between the AEC, CERC, l

and AEC's consultants, -Dames & Moore, Florida Power Corpo-ration and Dr.mes & Moore's consultants. This was a technical meeting to discuss the Dames & Moore and CERC computer hurri- ,

1 cane models and their application to Crystal River Unit 3  ;

Nuclear Plant. The AEC offered Florida Pow 2r Corporation a compromise PMH storm surge elevation of 32.1 feet MLW at the close of this meeting. Florida Power Corporatio:' chose to de-cline this compromise. The final conclusion wat diat both -

Dames & Moore and CERC uould undertake studies to verify their respective models. On February 22, 1973, a meeting was held at the downtown Los Angeles Hilton Hotel between Dames & Moore, AEC, and CERC to discuss procedures of this verification study.

( Appendix A contains correspondence between the AEC, Florida Power Corporation, and Dames & Moore concerning this verification study. This correspondence includes letters of transmittal pertaining to historical hurricane data.

1.4 SCOPE The agreed upon scope of this study includes:

l

1. Formulation of the model--an analytic description j of the open coast storm surge and a mathematical l l

and theoretical description of Dames & Moore's computer model.

2. Computer code verification--comparison of Dames i

& Moore's and CERC's computer models with known analytic solutions.

5

. ,m .

3. Calibration with field data--calibration of Dames

& Moore's computer model against hydrographs of historical hurricanes.

4. Hurricane storm surge model--verification summary of D&M's hurricane model.

5. Crystal River flood elevations--application of the D&M hurricane model to Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant, wave generation and final design flood elevations.

The above scope includes the responses to Questions 1 through Sc of Enclosure 1 in the AEC's letter of March 12, 1973.

(Appendix A) .

s 1

l 1

l

M e

h m*E e E=

s

• d e

S e

/

4

6 l l

1 1

/ ~' '-

2. FORMULATION OF THE MODEL ,

l l

l The hur.ricane storm surge mathematical model used by l l

Dames & Moore is completely described in Appendix B of this re-i port. Also included in this appendix is a description of the numerical means and computer program used to effect solutions to the mathematical model.

2.1 ANALYTIC DESCRIPTION

~

The model is based on the general equations of hori-zontal fluid flow, simplified to neglect certain second order 1

terms and to be quasi one-dimensional in nature. The model is l

, designed to analyze open coast storm surge due to the passage l l

of an idealized PMM. l

( The basic equations upon which the model is based may be written as follows:

df , xgg _ KfId (y)

E Y (h+9)"

d2 , kUUx +0f ,

,2) dx g(h+q)

The x-axis is taken generally perpendicular to the coastal bathymetry contours with the origin located in deep water (600 to 900 feet;. The other parameters in the above equations are:

.f = flow-flux in the direction of the y-axis

( (perpendicular to the x-axis and along constant

-depth bathymetry' contours)

7

/ U = wind velocity U x,,U y = wind velocity component along the x-axis and y-axis, respectively k = wind stress coefficient K = bottom friction coefficient 9 = surge elevation above stillwater level h = stillwater depth at a given instant of time (includes the effects of tides, barometric pres-sure effects and any initial surge effects due to meteorological anomalies)

O = Coriolis parameter = 0.5235 sin + , rad /hr

+ = degrees north latitude 2

g = acceleration of gravity, taken as 32.2 ft/sec n = an exponent b Equations (1) and (2) result from the basic horizontal flow equations with the following assumptions:

1. Wind gradients and water depth variations in a di-rection normal to the x-axis are taken to be small--

thus the problem becomes essentially, one-dimensional in nature.

2. No flow occurs in the x-direction, and the surge ele-vation occurs instantaneously in time--thus a hypo-thetical vertical barrier to fluid motion normal to the coast is presumed.

3. Since surge is assumed to be negligible at the origin of' coordinates in deep water the initial conditions of zero surge and flow flux are used.

8

(

The means of determining the wind velocity for a PMH storm as well as the other necessary input parameters for the storm are described in detai: in Appendix B, and therefore, will not be covered in this section.

Reference to the right-hand side of Equation (1) in-dicates that the dissipation term due to bottom friction is taken to be inversely proportional to the total water depth to the power n. This exponent includes an effective division of the dissipation term by the square of total water depth <

(due to the conversion of average flow velocity to flow flux) and the relationship of the bottom friction coefficient to the

(

water depth.

A consideration of the bottom friction coefficient on the basis of Manning's work (1890) for open channel ficw would indicate that the bottom friction coefficient is in-versely proportional to the one-third power of the depth.

The boundary layer theory of Prandtl-von Karman, however, im-plies that this coefficient is independent of depth.

In light of the above discussion it would appear that the exponent, n, should be either 2.0 or 2-1/3. Depending on the choice of this exponent, different ranges of values for the coefficient, K, may be expected. The basic hurricane storm surge program of Dames & Moore takes the exponent, n, to be 2.0.

p However, as described in Section 4.4, a correlation with his-torical data of record is performed wherein the exponent, n,

9

/ (termed CONSD in the analysis) is allowed to obtain both of the above-stated values. This is done to test 'he degree of correlation with th'a parameter n (or CONSD) . In the process .

of this study, the range of values of the bottom friction coefficient, K, for each of the values of n is also determined.

I e

a i

. . _ _ - _ _ _ l

10 2.2 . DAMES & MOORE MODEL Insofar as the form of the governing equations for storm surge are concerned, the Dames & Moore model is identical to that used by CERC, Reference 3. Also identical in the two models are the basic assumptions listed above and the means for determining the input wind field and the range of input values for the bottom friction factor for the case of the inverse square assumption (n=2). There are, however, two primary differences in the two models; the wind stress factor and the numerics used in solving Equations (1) and (2).

These differences and their resolutions are the main subjects of concern in this report. A detailed discussion of the wind stress factor follows.

(

The re". ationship governing wind stress, To , is usually of the fonu ib = PaCD U -hh- (3) where CD = drag coefficient Pa = density of air U = wind velocity (at the 10 meter level)

Several studies (References 4, 5, 6) indicate that the drag coefficient, CD , has a velocity dependence of the form:

CD=A+B (1-U o/U)2 (4) where A and B are constants and U'o = critical wind velocity below which CD"A*

{

11 Implicit in the reduced horizontal flow equations (1 and 2) is a division by the water density, p,. Thus, the density effect , the bottom friction cancels out. The wind stress coefficient, k, however, involves a density ratio.

Hence, on comparing Equations (1), (2), (3), and (4) , the wind stress coefficient obtains the form:

k = Pa / P, [ A+B (1-U o /U) ] (5)

Wilson (Reference 4) correlates the work of numerous investigators in an attempt to determine the value of the coefficients A and B. It appears, from the above investigation, that the following values for A and B are indicated:

A = 1.0 to 1.1 X 10-3 (6)

B = 1.2 to 1.8 X 10-3  ;

( l In addition, the previously quoted works of Keulegan i and Van Dorn indicate that the critical wind velocity, Uo , l is between 13 and 16 miles per hour. The density ratio, P a/ Pw for standard condition (20*C and 29.92 inches Hg) and for sea water is taken to ba:

(Pa /Pw) STP = 1.17 x 10-3 (7)

The density ratio is affected by changes in the barometric pressure, the dewpoint temperature and the air 1

temperature (assuming P, is invarient) . In the case of a PMH l

hurricane acting on coastal waters, the greatest variation l in this ratio may be taken as caused by the local changes in the barometric pressure. Hence, assuming a linear relation-( ship between air density and barometric pressure it is shown that:

i

, __ F

12

-e (Pa /Pw) = 1.17 x 10" x 7hF2 (8) where P = local barometric pressure in inches - Hg The local pressure,,P, in the presence of a hurricane may be taken as (see Appendix B):

P = - Ph - (Pq-Po ) 1-exp (-R/p ) (9) where Ph = asymptotic pressure of hurricane Po = central pressure of hurricane R = radius of maximum winds p = radial distance from hurricane center ~

Thus the pressure is determined from Equation (9) and the wind stress coefficient correspondingly obtained from the relationship:

k = [CSKl + CSK2 (1-43/U)] x 1.17 x 29 92 f

The coefficients CSK1 and CSK2 obtain values of 10-3 times those shown in Equation (6) and the critical velocity, Uo' ,

in taken as 15 miles per hour.

The storta surge model used by CERC (Reference 3) uses the following relationship for the wind stress coefficient:

k = (1.1 + 2.5 (1-16/U) 2] x 10-6 xC (11) where C is a multiplier normally taken to be 1.1.

It is apparent that for standard conditions of temperature and pressure, the corresponding values of A and B (refer to Equation 5) for Equation (11) are:

A = 1.0 x 10-3 B = 2.4 x 10-3

{

-=r

13 The major differences between the wind strese coeffi-cient used in Dames & Moore's model (Equation 10) and that used in the model of CERC (Equation 11) are:

1. Equation (10) implies a pressure dependent density ratio effect whereas this is neglected in Equation (11).

2. Equation (11) implies a far larger value of the coefficient B then indicated in Reference 4 and shown in Equation (6).

T1.ese differences may only be resolved by reliance on field da :a. Section 4 of this report is devoted to the correlation of the Dames & Moore model to observed Jurricane storm surges of past record so as to obtain optimum values

(

of CSKl and CSK2. As previously described, this correlation also includes the parameter, n (or CONSD) , as well as the attendent value of the bottom friction coefficient, K.

This correlation, however, is performed on the basis of assuming that the field Equations (1) and (2) are accurately solved by the numerical techniques on which the program is based. The following section summarizes these techniques and compares the program output to the analytical solution of several hypothetical problems.

(

L

-f S S

e b(

7" =

t D 1 CS O C C

3 O

4 I

q %-

--e..-e=ee"- ._ .... - - - . , ~ - - -

14

3. NUMERICAL ACCURACY OF STORM SURGE PROGRAM The solutions of Equations (1) and (2) are generally obtained by numeric'al means. The general horizontal flow equations are hyperbolic in nature, however, the reduction and simplification of these equations render them parabolic in character. Thus, tha main concern in adopting a numerical integration scheme is to minimize truncation errors. The means of integration used in Dames & Moore's program is detailed in Appendix B. This scheme is summarized as follows:

1. The x-axis is discretized into a number of stations numbered from deep water to shore as j = 1 to J

• D

2. Time steps are numbered in k space with a typical step size of At.

3. Solution is started at time zero with all depen-dent variables set to zero and at Station j = 1.

4. Equation (1) is used to advance f from k = 1 to k = 2 using a high order Runge-Kutta technique.

5. Equation (2) is used to advance q at k = 2 from station j = 1 to j = 2 using a first order expan-sion about j = 1.

6. Equation (1) is used to advance f from k = 1 to k = 2 at station j = 2 using the first order value of q obtained from Step 5 and the Runge-Kutta technique of Step 4.

15 r

7. Step 5 is repeated using the value of f obtained from Ster 6 and the Runge-Kutta technigse.

8. Steps 6 and 7 are cycled until convergent values of the dependent variables are obtained at j = 2, k = 2.

9. The entire process is twice rcpeated for time steps of (At)/2.

10. The process is repeated at successive binary sub- .

multiples of time until convergent values of the dependent variables are finally obtained at j =2 and k = 2 (convergent in both space and time integration).

i

( 11. The process is repeated for all space stations and the entire process is advanced in time until a pre-scribed number of time calculations past the ar-rival of a peak surge at j =J D is obtained.

12. Detailed printouts of independent and dependent variables may be displayed at each time step.

13. Summary values and plots of surge versus time at selected j stations are given at the conclusion of the program, t

._. _ _ ~ _ . - _ _ . . . _ _ . ,. - - - . - - -

.~_

l l

16 i r

Tne referenced program of CERC, however, uses a-priori defined time step increments. The dependent variables are advanced in space and time by using, essentially, first order Taylor expansions of the dependent variables with Equations (1) and (2) defining the slopes in space and time. It is clear, that of the two methods, the latter may involve signifi-cant truncation errors in that only first order expansions are assumed. The former method (the model of Dames & Moore), ,

in comparison, uses a much higher order expansion in spacial integration and an essentially unlimited flexibility in time integration.

The accuracy of any numerical scheme is ideally checked by comparison to an idealized example for which an analytic solution is available. The availability of an analytic solution will normally entail many assumed simplifications to the geaeral problem. However, even with these simplifica-tions the accuracy of the program coding and the general num-erical scheme can be tested.

The following hypothetical cases were chosen to test both surge models. Each example wi13 be described sep-arately with the derived analytical solution given and the outputs of both programs compared thereto.

17 3.1 CASE 1 Consider a rectangular basin of constant depth (h g) and with vertical sides over which a wind, constant in time but variable in space, acts. Assume that at some point, taken as the origin of coordinates, a node exists such that the surge value at that point is zero. Further assume that the wind vector , U (x) , is along the x-axis. Figure 1 shows the case described.

I

( l - /

Ux l NODE _ SIDE h,X g "q(x) CHANNELN o WALL l  : X ho  :

l CHANNEL FLOOR n

y-s--

f u L

GEOMETRY FOR CASE I FIGURE 1 l

1

18

/

Since the wind is directed along the x-axis, Equation (2,1 may be used to determine the steady state value of the surge amplitude,n .

(q+h ) dq = k/g U2(x): q(o) =0 (12a)

Ex Thus (q/hg+1)2 =

1 + pf (x ' ) dx ' (12b) where: x' = x/L U (x) =U g f(x) 2 p = 2 k LU /g h g -

9 and k is assumed to be constant.

It is assumed that the wind has a gaussian distribution for x'2 0. Hence, f (x ' ) is taken to be of the form:

f (x ' ) = exp A

_ Y (1-x ') 2

(

It is then easily shown that the solution'to Equa-tion' (12b) becomes:

'b n/h g = p y, erf(/lI) - erf (/lI(1-x ') +1 -1 (13 )

7 A  ;

where erf = error function.

The following input parameters are chosen:

Ug = 120 mph (176 ft/sec) k = 2.5 x 10 -6 l L = 100 nautical miles (608,000 ft.)

2 g =

32.2 ft/sec hg = 20 ft., and A = 4.66459 (arbitrary constant)

( 15us p = 7.3111 i

I

-- - . ~ . - - . . . - ,.

19 f

The values of surge elevation versus x' for 0 s x' s 1.0 are shown in Figure 2 as given by Equation (13).

Also shown in the figure are results predicted by CERC's program and Dames & Moore's program. In obtaining the program results for the latter case minor modifications in one subroutine were effected to input the prescribed wind field and constant wind stress coefficient. However, the main part of the program which invclves

~

the numerical integration technigre was left unaltered. Also, in comparing the results of the two programs, it should be observed that CERC's program computes results at x-axis stations midway between stations used in the Dames & Moore program.

It is apparent from Figure 2 that the output of Dames k & Moore's program shows negligible deviation from the theoretical results. CERC's program, however, predicts consistently high re-sults with an indicated error in excess of seven percent at maxi-mum surge and correspondingly higher deviational percentages at lower surge values. The probable reason that the computed surge is consistently higher than the true value in the case of CERC's model is due to the low order integration accuracy of the model.

Hence, due to the shape of the wind field, a first order expansion of the independent variables in Equation (2) will overestimate the average value of the slope of the dependent variable, dq/dx, at lower values of x and underestimate this quantity for higher values of x.

(

.~.m.._

20 f

3.2 CASE 2 Again, consider a rectangular cross-sectional shape of constant depth, h o, with the origin of coordinates at a supposed nodal point. In this case, however, suppose a wind that is everywhere constant but acting at an angle O to the x-axis as shown in Figure 3. Since a component of wind now acts perpendi-cular to the x-axis, a flow flux will now occur producing both a transient and steady-state solution to the problem. In order to allow a cross-flow, it is %pposed that the canal is infinitely long with a rectangular cross-section.

( ANN \\\\\I\\ \\kk\kNNkNkNNNNNNN ' a I

i u

eI L

f (x,tl e I l x la 1

y + _ _ _ _ _L _ _ __ X GEOMETR( FOR CASE 2 FIGURE 3

, l 1

l l

l 1

21

(

The analytic solution for Case 2 will be confined to the steady state conditions of the problem. Hence, from Equation (1) the.following relationship is obtained:

Kf = (h g +q) kUU y

or f = (h o +q) (kUU y) h (14)

K Substituting Equation (14) into Equation (2) yields ,

kUU g (h +q) hh = kUU x

+ 0 (hg +n) (g Y)b (15a)

Let S = ha +n a = kUUx /g

( b = O /g (kUU /K) y Hence, Equation (15a) becomes, S dS/dx = a + b5 (15b) 1 and if the boundary condition, S=h g at x=0, is used the 1

following transcendental solution for the surge height, n, is l

obtained:

x = q/b - (a/b 2) in 1+ (16) af]

For given input parameters and a specified value of x, Equation (16) will yield the dependent variable 9 . Equation (14) is then used to calculate the corresponding value of the flux, f.

l l

l 1

__ - - ~ - -

.-._7.. i

22 r

The input parameters of the problem are as follows:

-6 k = 2.5 x 10 U = 160 mph O = 30 degrees h, = 30 ft.

. + = 30 degrees (latitude)

' 2 g =

32.2 ft/sec L = 100 nautical miles .

K = 0.003.

In a manner similar to that used for Case 1, both Dames

& Moore and CERC's storm surge programs were used with the fore-goin7 input parameters. In both cases, incremental lengths along

( the x-axis were taken equal to one-tenth of the reach, L. The programs were started at time, t=0 (where zero initial condi-tions were taken) and allowed to run until steady state conditions prevailed. The results of the program outputs are shown in Figure 4 along with the analytical results obtained from Equations (14) and (16).

It may be observed by reference to Figure 4 that the numerical results obtained from Dames & Moore's program indicate j negligible errors relative to the analytical results. The numeri-cal results obtained from CERC's program, however, indicate signi-ficant errors for values of x/L to about 0.6 corresponding to values of flux and surge approximating 50 percent of maximum attained values. However, as maximum surge and flux values are s

l

23

.f approached (as x/L approaches unity) the results from CERC's program indicate good agreement with theory.

One final program check against theory for Case 2 may be made. Consider the conditions presumed to exist at x=0 where the value of surge, n , is taken to be zero. At this location, the entire time domain solution for the flux, f, may be obtained for the steady wind conditions assumed. Hence, at x=0, Equation (1) may be written as:

2 df/dt = kUU (17) y - Kf /h g with the solution

'kUU Y

'h -

t f = h tanh kKUU (18) l K ho Y The results of Equation (18) for the input parameters 1 l

of Case 2 are shown in Figure 5 where the flux, f, is shown as a function of time, t. Also shown in Figure 5 are the computer results of Dames & Moore's program for the station x = 0. As can be seen, again there is negligible deviation from the theoretical results. Also shown in Figure 5 are the results of CERC's program for the closest x station available to x=0 (x/L = 0.05). It

should be pointed out that CERC's program computes the surge at the mid-points of stations used in Dames & Moore's program. Hence, a direct comparison of the flux calculation at x=0, in the case of CERC's program, to the theoretical results is not possible.

9

~ ~ .. ..e.<,ve...-as . _n-y m . .m g., . _, _ , , _ .

24 .

t In conclusion, it is apparent that the numerical pro-cedure used in Dame.s & Moore's storm surge program accurately correlates with the theoretical cases investigated. In contrast, it is apparent that CERC's program indicates a significant lack of correlation relative to the same cases. Although it is not possible to extrapolate conclusions to the more complex actual storm surge problems, it is certainly relevant to observe that

~

a model which exhibits inaccuracies in a hypothetical case might well yield imprecise results in the actual cases to be discussed later in this report.

(

w c ~ .-.,..-w,.-- -.-,,,ye -

, . ..w,n_.. .. __ _ , _ , _ _ _ _ _ , _ _

s

!=

n l

l e

i e

t e

c 0

~~

>F$

P i'

- C.

9 C

g3 OJ B

9 1

1 D

t.

c __ - . . -- -- _ - - - - - - .

. - - - - . - - - - - - - . . . . - - . . . - . . . . . -. . ~- -.

25 l

7. 4. CALIBRATION WITH FIELD DATA 4.1 PURPOSE The goal of this section was to ascertain which coeffi-cients of wind stress and bottom friction when used in conjunction with the mathematical model for hurricane surge prediction would yield results comparable to recorded historical events.

4.2 SCOPE The project entails determining which significant hur- -

ricanes of record are sufficiently documented to provide a valid basis for analysis. This information was supplied to Dames &

i Moore by the AEC.

Hurricanes chosen for the Gulf of Mexico were Carla l l (1961) , Audrey (1957), October 3, 1949, and Camille (1969) , and I l

for the east coast of the United States, Carol (1954). The data describing these hurricanes was digitalized by Dames & Moore and used with the mathematical model to generate a surge hydrograph which was then compared with an actual hydrograph. The results of the comparison indicated which combination of wind stress co-efficients and bottom friction coefficient could be optimally used with the model.

4.3 FIELD DATA -

4.3.1 General once the significant hurricanes of record are ascer-tained, it is necessary to:

(

_ : _ _ : _ =r _-  :- _ _ _ .

--- ~ - -

- . ~ . . . - _

26

~

1. Determine the location of tidal stations on the open coast for which a complete water surface hydro-graph is available. The tidal station also should be within a distance of about one to three times the radius of maximum winds away from the path of the hurricane center, in order to intercept the maximum effect of the hurricane.

~

2. Establish a traverse along which the mathematical model will calculate the increase in water surface elevation. The bearing of the traverse is estab-lished by orienting it perpendicular to the bathymetry (the nearshore bathymetry being more critical) between the coastal tidal station and the 600-foot depth contour.

3. Determine the accuracy of the water surface hydro-graph records.

4. Ascertain the correct tidal datum relationships applicable to the recorded hydrographs.

5. Obtain pressure and wind data which adequately de-fines the intensity of the hurricane. The wind data should intersect the traverse and should be available during the hurricane's passage from deep water to shore including the approximate time the maximum surge occurs.

(

27 4.3.2 Hurricane Carla - September 9-12, 1961 The tidal stations recommended by the AEC, to be used with this hurricane were Pleasure Pier at Galveston, Texas, and U. S. Coast Guard Station at Sabine Pass, Texas.

4.3.2.1 Pleasure Pier, Galveston, Texas The Pleasure Pier tide gage is located along the Gulf Coast of Texas and during 1961 was in approximately 12 feet of ,

~

water. The bearing of the traverse was obtained from Reference 7 (see Figure 6) while the bathymetry was taken from Nautical Charts 1282 and 1117 which have the depths referred to Mean Low Water (MLW) (see Figures 7 and 8).

The water surface hydrograph for Pleasure Pier is pub-t lished in graphical form, relative to Mean Sea Level (Sea Level i

Datum of 1929) in Reference 7 and in tabular form relative to Mean l i

Sea Level (Sea Level Datum of 1929) , in Reference 8.

l Both of these hydrographs are comprised of hurricane surge, astronomical tide, and an initial surge. In order to com-J pare the results from the Dames & Moore mathematical model with j the recorded hydrograph, the relationship between Sea Level Datum, 1929 (SLD) and MLW was required, along with the predicted tide for those days.

A tide, relative to SLD, for Pleasure Pier is published in both-References 7 and 8. While these tides are in phase, they differ in elevation (Figure 9) . In attempting to resolve the dis-crepancy, a tide predicted relative to MLW was obtained from l

28 Reference 9 and the relationship between SLD and MLW was ob-tained from Reference 10. This new tide agreed with neither of the previous two.

A fourth tide was obtained from Reference 11. At this stage, it was learned that the tide in the Gulf of Mexico prior to 1963 was viewed as a semi-diurnal tide with the MLW being defined as the average of the two daily low waters. However, since 1963 the tide has been treated as a diurnal tide with the MLW defined solely as the average of the lower low waters.

A. L. Shalowitz writing in 1964 (Reference 12), after the change in definition of MLW had been made, briefly discusses the new definition. On page 65, of Reference 12, talking about sea datums, he states:

"Along the Atlantic coast, where the tide is of the l semidiurnal type with two tides a day of approximately j equal range and successive low waters (which) differ but slightly, the adopted datum is mean low water, which is the mean of all the low waters in a given area. This also applies to the Gulf Coast where the tide is pre-dominantly of the diurnal type with but one high and one low water in a tidal day."

and continuing on the next page:

"But in applying the definition to tides which are pre-dominantly diurnal -- as is toe case with tides in the Gulf of Mexico -- the question arises whether to include

,_ ,v..w y,

29 7

or exclude from the tabulations the secondary tides which occur every fortnight and (during which) the tide curve exhibits two high and two low waters during a tidal day. . . Therefore in tabulating tides of the diur-nal type the secondary tides are completely disregarded in determining the datums of mean high water and mean low water, and on the days when two tides occur only the higher high water and the lower low water are used."

The change in definition of MLW introduced different correction factors as shown in Figure 10. The predicted tide from References 9 and 11 agree when the definition of MLW valid for a diurnal tide is used with the Reference 11 tide. It is evident that the tide in Reference 7 (which is predicted relative to MLW as defined for a semi-diurnal tide) was corrected to SLD with a relationship which is valid only for a diurnal tide. Hence, the tide presented in Reference 7 is 0.62 feet too low.

The initial surge is estimated by subtracting from the recorded hydrograph the change in water surface elevation due to:

the astronomical tide, the wind-induced effects, and the reduced atmospheric pressure effects associated with the hurricane. These values are computed either before the hurricane reaches the edge of the continental shelf or at a time when the winds at the coast are between 20 miles per hour and 25 miles per hour. Hence the initial surge estimated in Reference 7 will be 0.62 feet too high.

i

l l

30 A digitalized hourly tide was used in the calculation of the surge hydrograph in order to more accurately approximate the dynamic nature of the event. A series of runs were also made which did not use a dynamic tide (" surge only"). A pure surge hydrograph for the " surge only' runs was obtained by subtracting the predicted ti6e and initial surge from the recorded hydrograph. A comparison of the two types of runs showed the inclusion of a dynamic tide yields better results, while the difference was not considerable.

The wind data describing Hurricane Carla is published in Reference 13 in the form of surface wind charts. The charts are for six-hour intervals from 1200 GMT* of the 9th through 1200 GMT of the 10th, then three-hour intervals up to 1500 GMT of the 12th. Each chart contains lines of equal wind velocity (isovels) and lines of equal angle of incurvature (isolines).

'1he angle of incurvature at any point is the angle between the wind direction and the tangent to a circle drawn through that point and concentric with the storm center. The variation of the hurricane wind field along the traverse with time was defined by digitalizing for each chart the distance to where the isovels and isolines crossed the traverse and their magnitudes. That is, the magnitude and direction of the wind at any point on the traverse was obtained by linearly interpolating brtween isovel and isoline crossings, respectively. Similarly, the wind field was interpolated

• Greenwich Meridian Time

(

31 g

linearly between the times of the wind field charts. All inter-polation was done by the computer. .

other physical parameters describing the hurricane such as: central pressure, asymptotic pressure, radius to maximum winds, forward translational velocity, and the maximum wind velo-city were supplied by the AEC.

4.3.2.2 U. S. Coast Guard Station at Sabine Pass, Texas This station is located in the channel which connects -

Sabine Lake with the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 11). The hydrograph recorded at this station was undoubtedly modified by convergence and frictional effects and not truly representative of the hydro-graph which occurred at the open coast.

The bearing of the traverse was obtained from Reference 7 (Figure 6) . The bathymetry between the shore station and the 600-foot depth contour was taken from Nautical Charts 1116 and 1

1279, relative to MLW. The depths along the traverse were chosen to be representati"e of the continental shelf in this region (see Figures 12 and 13).

The water surface hydrograph and predicted tide for Sabine Pass is published relative to SLD in both References 7 and

8. Similar problems existed with the predicted tide data for Sabine Pass as had occurred with the Galveston data (Figures 14 and 15). The tide published in Reference 7 is 0.6 feet too low I resulting in an initial surge estimate which is 0.6 feet too high.

A digitalized hourly tide was used with the mathematical model.

(

Wind data was digitalized in a manner similar to that used.for Galveston, Pleasure Pier.

32

('

4.3.3 Hurricane Audrey, June 27, 1957, Eugene Is, land, La.

Eugene Island, Louisiana is located on the neaward side of Atchafalaya Bay, having an excellent unobstructed access to the Gulf of Mexico. The bearing of the traverse was obtained from Reference 7 (Figure 16) , while the bathymetry was taken from Nattical Charts 1116 and 1276 which have depths referred to MLW (see Figures 17 and 18). Since the island is approximately eight nautical miles from shore, the traverse was continued past the island to the landward side of Atchafalaya Bay. This is a truer representation of actual conditions than discontinuing the traverse at the island, since a hurricane would produce a surge which would flood over and around the island into the bay behind.

The water surface hydrograph and predicted tide for Eugene Island is published in Reference 7. The tide in Reference 7 agrees with the tide obtained from Reference 11. This is probably because SLD has never been extended from the mainland to the island and the problems which occurred with Hurricane Carla would not exist here. An hourly digitalized tide was used with the mathematical model.

The wind data describing Hurricane Audrey is published in Reference 14. The charts are fgf two-hour intervals from 0000 CST

• to 0600 CST and 120@ CS'. tc 2400 CST, and at one-hour

• Central Standard Time i

e --.~w.e - . . . .,

r3y. . , ~ . - . - -7 ---

.w  %

• f. 9. p . w. ,4 7 . i,.f, m g%-,yw-

7 33

.g intervals between 0600 CST and 1200 CST. Each chart contains the magnitude of the winds shown by isovels and the direction of the wind shown by arrows. The variation of the hurricane wind field with time along the traverse was defined by digitalizing the distance to where the isovels crossed the traverse and the magni-tude of the isovel. The direction of the wind at each intersection point was estimated from the surrounding arrows. This procedure

~

was followed for each chart. The method used for interpolating wind data between wind charts and along the traverse was the aame as that outlined for Hurricane Carla.

Other physical parameters describing the hurricane such as: central pressure, asymptotic pressure, radius to maximum winds, forward translational velocity and the maximum wind velocity were obtained from Reference 14.

4.3.4 Hurricane of October 3, 1949, Freeport, Texas l

The tidal stations recommended by the AEC to be used  ;

i with this hurricane were Freeport and Galveston, Texas. However, j it was only possible to analyze the Freeport data since the Galveston traverse did not intercept the wind data published in Reference 15. ,

1 The tidal station at which the hurricane event was re- l l

corded in Brazos River Gates. Brazos River Gates is located in-land of the Gulf of Mexico at the intersection of the Brazos River and the Intracoastal Waterway (Figure 19) . Hence, this

(

l

34 hydrograph will be different from the actual surge which occurred at the coast. The bearing of the traverse was obtained from

~ Reference 7 (Figure ~ 6), while the bathymetry for the traverse was supplied by the AEC (Figures 20 and 21) . The water surface hydro-graph and the predicted tide for Brazos River Gates are published in Reference 7. The predicted tide and the initial surge were subtracted from the recorded hydrograph yielding a pure surge hy-drograph. This surge hydrograph was then compared with the com-puter calculated surge hydrograph without the use of a dynamic tide. This was done because the correction factor for SLD to MLW was not available, at the time, and had not been supplied by the AEC. Furthermore, since there was no significant difference be-tween the dynamic tide and the pure surge runs for Hurricane Carla, the latter was considered acceptable.

The wind charts from Reference 15 are for one-hourly intervals from 1500 CST, October 3 to 0500 CST, October 4, 1949.

Wind field data from each chart was digitalized following the pro-cedure outlined under Hurricane Audrey. Other parameters describ-ing the hurricane such as: central pressure, asymptotic pressure, radius to maximum winds, and forward translational velocity were supplied by the AEC. The maximum wind velocity was estimated from the wind field charts of Reference 15.

4.3.5 Hurricane Carol, August 31, 1954, Narragansett Bay, R.I.

A tabulated water surface hydrograph for Newport, Rhode Island was provided in Reference 16 by the Atomic Energy Commission.

1 l

.=

- -~ .-

35

('

This record is an extrapolation from high water and debris marks in the region of Newport and the tide record from Providence,

.hode Island. High water and debris marks usually include a wave-induced runup in excess of the astronomical tide and hurricane surge. . The tide gage, for which the hydrograph is purportedly representative, is situated inside Coasters Harbor which is along the eastern shore of Narragansett Bay, approximately seven nautical miles from the open coast (Figure 23) . -

The orientation and bathymetry of the traverse to be used with the hurricane was prepared by the Coastal Engineering i

h- Research Center (see Figures 22, 24, and 25). While the traverse is orthogonal to the deep water bathymetry as it approaches the shallower depths, it forms an acute angle with the contours (Figures 22 and 23) .

The wind charts from Reference 17 are for three-hour intervals from 0130 EST* to 1330 EST and two-hour intervals from 1330 EST to 1730 EST, August 31. Wind field data from each chart i was digitized following the procedure outlined under Hurricane i

Audrey. The wind field charts of Reference 17 do not coincide with the time of occurrence of the maximum surge, but instead i bracket it with a three-hour time period. That is, the maximum surge occurred 1-1/2 hours later than the winds shown on the

{ preceding wind field chart, and 1-1/2 hours prior to the follow-i ing wind field chart. This is significant because Hurricane Carol traveled over 100 miles during this period, having attained

a high translational velocity as it crossed the coast.

l'

• Eastern Standard Time

.1 m y --..m '%% -+. ...e,,--,--<

, f.y ,m,py,,,

I 36 .

7 If wind data is not available near the. time of recorded maximum

" surge occurrence, it is likely that the recorded maximum surge will not be calculated since the hurricane's winds are not de-fined during the recorded higher surge values. However, call-brating to a surge elevation which is lower than the maximum I surge elevation, but coincident with the available wind field l information, would be reasonable. Hence, the results were cali-1 brated to a surge elevation which was lower than the maximum l l

surge by approximately one foot. However, the maximum surge elevation contains anamolous effects. It is not a gage record and the location (for which the hybrid record is purportedly 1

representative) cannot be correlated to the open coast.

The physical parameters describing the hurricane were derived from published material or estimated. The radius to maxi-mum winds, forward translational velocity and the maximum wind speed were estimated from the wind field charts of Reference 17.

The central pressure was obtained from Reference 18. The asymp-i

'totic pressure was estimated as standard atmospheric.

4.3.6 Hurricane Camille, August 17-18, 1969, Biloxi, Miss.

Neither a complete set of hourly wind field data nor a complete water surface hydrograph for the duration of the hurri-cane were available. The calculated occurence of the maximum surge falls midway between two wind field charts which are six hours apart. Therefore, the calculation of a maximum surge ele-vation for comparison to the maximum observed surge with six l- - . . . -. - - - . - . . . - -

i 37 hours4.282407e-4 days <br />0.0103 hours <br />6.117725e-5 weeks <br />1.40785e-5 months <br /> of missing wind data during the occurrence of maximum surge, could result in the use of lower winds than actually occurred.

In place of a complete water surface hydrograph, a maxi-mum elevation of flooding was obtained from Reference 19. It was stated in Reference 19 that the elevations presented were ob-tained from high water and debris marks including the effects of wave-induced runup. As mentioned previously, the effect of wave-induced runup is to increase the highwater elevations beyond ,

those attributable to the astronomical tide and hurricane surge.

From Reference 19 it is also evident that the maximum surge is a local condition in that the maximum flooding elevation varies from 18.5 feet to 19.5 feet SLD, within one nautical mile of the tra-15 verse's intersection with the coast. Since only the high water mark was supplied for Camille, this hurricane was used to verify the correlation results obtained from the previous four hurricanes.

The tidal station recommended by the Atomic Energy Com-mission to be used with this hurricane was Biloxi, Mississippi which is approximately 22 nautical miles to the east of the hur-ricane's path. The orientation and bathymetry for the traverse were supplied by the Atomic Energy Commission (see Figure 16, 26, and 27).

Since only a maximum elevation was being considered, a tide coincident with the arrival of the maximum surge at the coast was used. An elevation of 1.7 feet MLW was obtained for the tide from Reference 20. The relationship between SLD and MLW used for Elloxi was 0.0 feet SLD = 0.65 feet MLW. The A

w-%-- =i

.m-e-.ww. .% t,+. - - . . . +

.-e.9

38 c,

SLD-MLW relationship was derived from the relationships for Bay St. Louis, west of Biloxi, of 0.0 feet SLD = 0.59 feet MLW and for Pascagoula, east of Biloxi, of 0.0 feet SLD = 0.72 feet MLW.

The wind charts from Reference 21 are six-hour intervals from 0000 GMT to 1800 GMT of the 17th and from 0600 GMT to 2400 GMT of the 18th and at three-hour intervals between 1800 GMT of the 17th and 0600 GMT of the 18th. Wind field data from each chart was obtained from the AEC in digitalized form (see Appendix -

D). The format of this data was modified by D&M to make it com-patible with the input format for D&M's model (Appendix D).

Other physical parameters describing the hurricane such as: central pressure, asymptotic pressure, radius to maximum winds, forward translational velocity, and the maximum wind vel- 1 ocity were supplied by the AEC.

4.4 CALIBRATION 4.4.1 Introduction The purpose for calibration of Dames & Moore Program EP34 HURRICANE STORM SURGE ANALYSIS to hurricanes of record is to 1

show the relationship of several specific parameters to each other l by comparing the recorded surge hydrograph to the calculated surge hydrogaph. The input parameters that the calibration procedure focuses upon are:

1. constant part of wind-stress coefficient (CSKl) ,

2. constant multiplier of velocity-dependent part of wind stress coefficient (CSK2),

, l 1

+

_ _ . _ _ . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ l

39 m

3. bottom friction coefficient (BOTF), and

4. the exponent of depth for bottom friction effect (CONSD).

The range of values for CSKl and CSK2 used in the calibration pro-cedure did not vary appreciably from those utilized in previous investigator's work (References 4 and 7).

The calibration procedure consisted of holding a value of.CSKl constant while values of CSK2 were chosen throughout the ,

predetermined range. At each pair of CSKl and CSK2, BOTF was varied until the calculated surge hydrograph in comparison to the known input surge hydrograph reached an optimal condition, which will be referred to as "best fit." The critoilu for "best fit" is explained in detail in Section 4.4.5. This procedure was con-tinued, choosing additional values for CSK1, until the entire range of values for CSK1 and CSK2 were analyzed. Two values for the exponent of depth for bottom friction effect were considered; CONSD = . 0 and 2.3333 . Only for the Galveston, Sabine Pass and Freeport traverses were both values of CONSD used jn the calibration. Calibrations performed using both values of CONSD did not show significant differences between the calculated and recorded hydrographs. Thus, the other correlation studies were performed using only a CONSD value of 2.0.

1 The analysis included dynamic addition of tide into the surge hydrograph, when sufficient tidal data was available, as well as calibration to the " surge only" condition. Dames & Moore 1

---r  ;- -,...my.,_... .,m.,,...,__. ,

.= - -u - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ . _ -

40 was furnished with data, by the AEC, on five hurricanes (traverses in parentheses): 'Carla (Galveston and Sabine Pass), Carol (Narragansett Bay), Audrey (Eugene Island) , October 3,1949 (Freeport) and Camille (Biloxi). The Camille surge data consisted solely of a maximum high water mark. Therefore, after the first four hurricanes (five traverses) were calibrated and a general set of input parameters were determined, the Camille peak surge value was used as a cross-check of the validity of the calibration pro-cedure.

4.4.2 Program Modification Dames & Moore's computer program for calculation of hur-ricane storm surge was modified to accept the linearly interpo-s lated wind field for the five hurricanes of record. Previously, l for a PMH condition, the program would calculate the wind field according to the procedure outlined in Reference 2. The digita- I lized wind field data (which was digitalized according to the procedure outlined in Section 4.3.2.1 and is shown in Appendix D) was made compatible with the modified computer program by another program called BATCH (see Appendix E).

BATCH accomplishes this by linearly interpolating wind velocities and wind vector directions from the digitalized wind field data. This interpolated wind field data, for each traverse station and for the times of each wind field chart, was produced from BATCH in the form of punched computer cards. The output from l

I 1

_ _ . . _ _ j

41 BATCH is shown in printed format in Appendix E. These cards were then used with the modified hurricane program for the calibration runs.

The program's capabilities were further expanded by enabling it to compute the pressure at any point in the hurricane.

This was accomplished by including the values of asymptotic pres-sure and central pressure as program input. A complete listing

~

of the modified program is contained in Reference 22, from which it is evident that the numerical techniques utilized in the surge calculation were not altered.

4.4.3 Input As discussed in Section 4.3.3 certain parameters of the hurricane are indicative of the intensity of the storm. The characteristic parameters which were used with the mathematical model were: translational velocity of the storm, central pres-sure, asymptotic pressure, radius from the center of the storm to the maximum winds, maximum wind velocity and the wind field as described by each wind field chart. Since storms of different intensities were considered, these parameters changed with each hurricane. A listing of the parameters used in conjunction with the model for each hurriaane is given in Appendix D.

Also used in the calculations are physical data which describe the general environment in which the hurricane occurred.

This data consists cf the bathymetry along the traverse, the tide

42 which was predicted to occur during the hurricane and the initial surge which was calculated as previously defined. This data is also shown in Appendix D.

The recorded hydrograph is input to the program so that an internal comparison can be made between it and the calculated hydrograph. The digitalized form of the recorded hydrographs is presented in Appendix D.

~

4.4.4 Output Each output contains a listing of the input parameters and a printer-plot of the calculated surge hydrograph versus the input surge hydrograph. A complete output of all the calibrating computer runs performed on the six hurricane traverses is given in Reference 23.

Three methods of comparison were employed to judge the accuracy of calculated hydrograph relative to the recorded hydrograph. A point-by-point comparison was made by looking at the percent diff( :ence between the two hydrographs at each time-step. The time-staps were defined by the times given for the wind field charts.

A second method, which views the hydrograph more as a whole while emphasizing the maximum surge, was also used. This method computes the sum of the squares of the differences between the two hydrographs for the duration of the hydrograph. Also, a percent difference at the point of maximum surge was calculated.

t

.,...,,,..;.y._.__

43 A final method of comparison employed looked at the average percent difference, for each one-third portion, between

. the two hydrographs.- This enabled an analysis of the " fit" of the critical middle-third of the hydrograph. This section is con-sidered critical because it experiences a rapid rise in water elevation consisting of the maximum water levels.

The results for the six hurricane traverses analyzed are located in Reference 23. Reference 23 contains the input parameters (CSK1, CSK2, BOTF, CONSD) and the results (snm of squares of differences, percent difference at point of maximum surge, and average percent difference for each one-third portion of calculated hydrograph from input hydrograph) of all calibration runs considered for each traverce.

4.4.5 Method of Varying Input Parameters The limits between which the calibrating input param-eters were allowed to vary have been discussed in Section 4.4.1.

Using these limits in conjunction with the criteria for "Best Fit" (see Section 4.4.6) the input parameters of concern were varied in the following manner: l 1

1. A value of CSK1 was held constant while values of CSK2 were varied between the limits defined by previous investigetor's work (References 4 and 7) .

l This procedure was followed for the full range of I CSK1 values. l i

, ..-.m. .- _._-- . . _ _ _ . . . - . , . . _ _ , , - - _ . . , , . , - y._. _ , . . . -.

44

2. BOTF was varied for each pair of CSK1 and CSK2 until l the "best fit" condition was reached. The criteria for determining the "best fit" condition is dis-cussed in Section 4.4.6.

3. The procedure outlined in Steps 1 and 2 was repeated

-for the two values of CONSD as defined in Section 4.4.1.

4.4.6 Criteria for Determining a "Best Fit" Condition -

The conditions which were judged to be significant in matching the calculated hydrograph to the observed hydrograph, in order to obtain a "best fit" condition are as follows:

1. The value of maximum surge must be slightly greater than the observed value. To ensure that the maximum surge calculated is reasonable, while being con-servative, a limit of -2.0 was placed on the percent

)

error. Note that a calculated surge which is greater than an observed surge produces a negative percent error.

2. Since the middle-third section of the hydrograph is the most critical section, this section of the cal-culated hydrograph, on the average, must be greater than the cbserved. Once again, to ensure conserva-tiveness while maintaining reasonable results, a limit of -2.0 was placed on the average percent error.

i l

l l

l

. - - . ._ . - - ~ - - . . . .~ ..

I 45 l

3. The sum of the squares of differences between the calculated and observed hydrographs must be a reasonably low value to ensure an overall best fit.

4. The values of average percent difference between calculated and observed hydrographs for the first and third portions should be balanced in sign and magnitude (to eliminate skewness). The values should also be low in magnitude.  ;

\

4.4.7 Results for Each Traverse 1

More calibration runs were performed for the Galveston i traverse (Hurricane Carla). This traverse had the best quality data for calibration of open coast storm surge of the five hur- '

t ricanes (six traverses) considered. Also, trends were recognized in the.Galveston results which allowed the range of critical input parameters to be reduced somewhat for the other traverses studied.

A discussion of the salient points which prevented an extensive analysis of the other five transverses follows:

1. The Sabine Pass hydrograph was recorded in a channel and not on the open coast. Hence, the analysis of the results showed the calculated hydrograph to be skewed (see Section 4.4.6) relative to the recorded hydrograph. The recorded hydrograph has been dis-torted by any frictional and convergence effects which the surge experienced traveling into and up

(

the channel, and is therefore not representative of an open coast hydrograph.

% e. + w S.a-.*w-e-w-.- m-*,-.==**e- w ------..-.e-a .--w.-- .--

. g.,-.ym,,,,,,

+

46

(

2. A_ full range of CSK1, CSK2 and BOTF parameters were used for the Hurricane Audrey, Eugene Island, traverse. Although the results for this traverse did not have the high degree of correlation desired, ,

it should be noted that previous investigators l l

(Reference 7) also obtained poor results for this traverse. Poor results for this traverse are probably due to the gage location. The island on which the gage is situated acts as a discontinuity in the bathymetry (see Section 4.4.7.3)

3. The calculated hydrograph for the hurricane of October 3, 1949, was skewed (see Section 4.4.6) relative to the recorded hydrograph. However, this was to be expected since the recorded hydrograph was obtained from a gage which was not located on the coast. ,

4. The traverse for Hurricane Carol was located on the western shore of Narragansett Bay while the hydro-graph was located further inland inside Coasters Harbor on the Eastern Shore. The hydrograph itself was not an instrument record but a composite of the i 1

shape of a hydrograph taken at another station towards the head of the bay. The peak surge was derived from high water and debris marks around l Newport. l

( _ _ _ . _ . _ , _ . ._. ._ _

i

.- - =w . . ~ . _

I 47

5. Hurricane Camille, BiloxA traverse, as previously stated, consisted solely of a peak surge value extrapolated from debris and high water marks which include the effects of wave-induced runup in addi- I tion to the flooding experienced from the peak surge.

This hurricane was used as a cross-check for the l "best fit" coefficients obtained from the analyses of the other five traverses.

4.4.7.1 Hurricane Carla - Galveston Traverse Calibration results for the Galveston traverse are given in Tables I, II, and III. Table I presents calibration runs per-formed for the " surge only" condition while Table II presents runs utilizing a dynamic tide. Table III presents the "Best Fit" condi-tions for the Galveston traverse.

In reviewing the results of Tables I and II the following trends are observed when comparing combinations of CSK1 and CSK2 with BOTF's of "Best Fit:"

1. Increasing values of CSKl and CSK2 results in:

a. increasing the sum of squares of differences

b. no particular trend in the negative percent difference at maximum surge or the negative average percent difference of the middle third of the hydrograph.

c. obtaining poorer fit in matching the front and back portions of the hydrographs l

t

[

.;  := -

. _ - _ _ _ _ . . . _ _ ____ - - ,_ . _ _ ._a_ - --m m ., _

48 TA8LE I - AESUL75 Fod 'ALvE570N faAvER5E (SURGE ONLY CONotTIONI AVER 8GE PCRCENT ERRORS CF CALCUL47ED CUw AUN TfME5 (10**61 ShM OF 500 Ants pgaCENT OtFFERENCE FdONT m! DOLE gaC4 NUMBE4 ' Cint C542 807F 00N50 . OF O!FFtakNCc5 A7 mAKIMJM SJHGe 7Hl40 7HIAD I H I R O~

5007 1.2 14 0.01000 2.33330 13.62 -2.1656 1.761 -3.025 3.226 SOLO 13 0.01000 12 79 -1.546* 1.961 -2 431 3.50s 5005 1.1 1.5 0.01100 2.33330 ,13.49 -0.8482 2.537 -1.781 4.003 S004 14 0.01100 13.30 -0.2416 2.728 -1 197 4 282 5008 13 0.01000 12.13 -0.5575 2.331 -1.4e6 3.98s 5042 1.2 0.00960 11.58 -0.3277 2.291 -1.261 4.017 4005 1.0 14 0.00180 2.00000 10.91 - .3073 1.657 -2.2's 3.267 6003 0.00200 11.62 - .2314 2.331 -1 2ft 3.9S#

C002- 0.00400 13.43 .5653 6.338 4.257 7.33h (001 0.00700 59.80 8.8977 8.996 7.424 8.e72 5013 10 1.4 0.00900 2.33330 11.30 -1.2589 1.849 -2.149 3.494 5011 0 009s0 1 4% -0.9209 2.054 -1.829 3.712.

50 9 0.00970 t 79 -0.4444 2.315 -1.426 3.481

$0 1 0.0 000 1 .43 -0 1914 2.502 -1.140 4.17e 50 $ 0.0 010 1 .53 0.0983 2.683 -0.666 4.361

, . SO 2 0.0 (00 1 .s9 -4.0316 0.235 -*.774 1 64d 0}2 13 0.00920 13 -0.3796 2.213 -1.309 3.957 040 0.00940 . 37

.. -0 163% 2 344 -1.105 4.077 026 0.00950 ..St -0.0480 2 409 -1.005 4.145 5014 0.00960 1 . 65 0.0454 2.472 -0.907 4 212 5003 0 01000 [J.28 0.4458 2.717 -0.52d 4.46s 50 50 r

} 12 0.00F40 0.00840

.0.15 -0.6424 1 596 -1.550 3.621

.0.36 -0.-102 .041 -1.321 3.7de 0 1 0.008a0 0.60 -0.1 62 .179 -1.100 3.94s 016 0.00900 .0.90 0.0594 .314 -0.8u5 4.096 011 0.009SO 11.75 0.3950 2.635 -0.St0 4.441 6004 0.9 14 0.00200 2.00000 11.97 0.7713 2 725 -0.261 4.451 5034 0.9 1.4 ~ 0.00860 2 33330 10.49 -0.6891 2 002 -1.597 3.6e5 5028 0.00edo 10.69 -0.4492 2 140 -1.374 3.841

$015 0.00900 10.93 -0.2207 2.274 -1.15e 3.992 5022 0.00920 31 20 0.0004 2.405 -0.949 4 137 I

$006 0.01000 12 $9 0.8114 2.897 -0 171 4.663 5035 1.3 0.00780 9.60 -1 0199 1.669 -1.906

$o17 0.00400 9.73 3.311 5029 -0.7927 1 820 -1 655 3.469 0 00630 10.03 =0 3706 2.0 3 A -1.293 3.749 5023 0.00se0 10.4s -0.0090 2.24F -0.950

$009 0.00950 12.12 3.991 0.9756 2.826 -0.019 4.642 5036 1.2 0.00750 9.06 -0.72SS 1 706 -1 624 3.34a 5030 0.00 F TO 9 25 -0.6693 1.e59 -1 362 3.537 5024 0.00790 9.50 -0.lu)2 2.008 -1 110 5 0.00850 10.S4 0.5593 3.719 0.009>0 2 431 -0.406 4.222 5 12 92 1.6394 3 062 0.617 4.945 5059 11 0.00690 8 33 -0.8810 1.505 -1.770 50$0 0.00700 e.*0 3.06u 5049 -0.7261 1.588 -1 624 3.16a 0.00720 8.59 -0.4300 .750 -

3.377 5044 0.00740 p.d4 -0.1429 .906 - .340 3.577 5063 5037 0.00770 0 00800 9.34 0 2666 U.132 - .06e

.679 3.coi 9.95 0.6536 U.348 -0 312 4 127 5056 0.8 1.3 0.00730 2.33330 . 8.86 -0.5940 1.792 -1.500 S051 0.00760 9 20 3.365 SO45 -0 1727 2 021 -1 100 3.6SF 0.00820 10 27 0.6016 2.449 -0.366 4.167 50s8 0.00900 12.23 1 5142 2.966 0.499 4.802 5057 1.2 0.00660 8.04 -0.9242 052 0.C0700 8.41 -0.2979 1 517 1.e46

-1 812 2.445 046 0.00820 10.95 -1.216 3.390 039 1.3089 2.717 0.310 4.507 0.00900 13.36- 2 2024 3.220 1.15T 5 110 5058 11 0.00600 7.41 -1 1793 .305 -2.0ST S0$3 0.006*O 7.63 -0.4h17 2.550 504F 0.00820 12.0% 2.0254

.659

.990

-lv391913 3.051 5040 0.00900 14.91 2.8387 4.ssi i 3 478 1.822 5.448

' 8 08 1.0 0.00 10 2.00000 6.70 -1 50'50 0.870 -2.400

.d 7 00090 7.77 -2.6007 0.357 -3.452 1.934 0 0 0.00 So 10.09 1.7788 1 104 2.STO 0.733 4.337 5054 0.8 1.0 0 00560 2.33330 6.86 -1.1187 1.270 5 60 0.00S70 6.8F -2.005 2.361 49 -0.92S3 .364 -1.620 2.506 0.00540 6.94 -1.5198 .0FS -2.390 44- 0.00000 12.78 2.5196 .143 1.466 2.oSu

. 041 0.00900 16 86 4.947 3.6044 3.743 2.495 5 7+F

\..

• 4 s-w.p.e-ows .

.,.%4.r y - sm % 4 - - .e p.6-,.w.w- w-- -mw;... - -

..f - . p ag ,p

- : ... . - . . . . - . _ . . . - - . - -. -.. < . w.-

. 49 7

TABLE II RESULT 5 F04 GALVESTON TR AVE ASE IDYNAMIC f t0E CO*actT!aMI AWERAGE WE4 CENT E4ADAS OF CALCUL4fE0 Cudi

. AuN TIMES (10**6) Sum 0F $QuAAE5 Pk4 CENT DIFFE4ENCE F40N7 mIGuth BA;n NumeE4 C541 C542 83Th C0450 0F OlFFERENCES At mAsimum suas.E THido TMina THt40 bL 1.2 1.6 to 2 00000 .7.48 .6307 3.726 -0.601 4.532

::1!88 I}i

. 40 0.00l38

!:88

.003 0  :::2d

.9. . . 079s f:81}

4 3t

8:lif 0.1 3

':i:t 4.9.a n

d 5 05 3.iO4 4.269

. i.4 - -0. u t og I:.00340-88218 ll::6 :I.4;u .il 2:t:8 -8:20 1:t??

'l27 0.00300 i9.9i -0.2444 4.261 0.424 5 226 818 8:88198 i:::  :&:11'  :&:!'s 2:i!!

11: 8:88118  :!:14 :8: tid l::11l 31!9 8:!!!  ::lil-119 '" 8:88'48 I 15: :8:1!!!  :!:19) 1:tt2 i' *17 125 *:88ii8

8. II.:.45 t

1!

9. 8:1!!,0!

i.05 1:Ut 3 926 8:(??

i.s40

':i!!

54w c.64 n.4 0.002to 2.00000 ti.to -1 3503 2.649 3.997  !

t.:

-110g itt 8:88!!8 t!:l!  :&:128 1:t!!  :&:!:9 2:2:7  !

!!!" 8:88fl8 12:11 :8:fl! 1::i? 8: lit  ::24 ,

.4 i.0 i.. 0.00i.0 2.00000 .2.st -2. .992 3 29 l': -2977

.i. 8:88188 0 00210

!)

!.:2, :f:.4.n

- t . !s i t) :i:.2

.9 :f:.t,!,

-i.3 i:st!

3.. 4 (t!' ' ' -

88'?8 :i:n :l:tlii 1:?i  :!:!:I 1: lit 1

!J f:8818

:l:3!s3 f:it}i :jjj!!  ?::i:

tils 0:88S88 d:'::41

1 . :8:1614 f:18f :0.641  ::iti 854 i.2 0.00150 9.64 =

-2.232 2.798

!?.t 8:88118 :I.5082:232i g st' :t:811 i:!!!

'j' 8:88118 '

8 g{.:!!

!! 8:ill: lig97

719 :8:3!! 2:13:

0.00200 6% 0.4723 3 011 0.3F4 4.401 stu 0.00$00 54.97 4.9011 7.460 6.531 E.325 l"

5-8:88128  ::t :4:1!IF 1::1  :!:!!! 1:!'

'h>

If ':88t(8 8.00400

t[

.9.4 :8': 'l"t l >

U i:ti!

6. 7 n

a:4:0 6 26 i:'il 8.fSi  ;

I{ l:88lt32"**

.00 30

1!

9.40

!:i'?!

-18h80

11

,.044  :]:l's9 6

!:ti:

4.155 eL6 0.00l00 31 3 4624 9.370 4 056 6.954 3

814 0.00400 . 47.0L96 4.7403 6 670 5.aSt 7.999 4

lla

$29 52 8:88!ia - !:I8 e.e0 0 1009 h':1!!

.035

f:;28

-0.850 2:!';

3.3k2

.0.00I40 i'i 85 8:88l8 0.00 00 18

t! 5:li!!

2 444%

1:'il

3. 69

8:isi 2 114 i:ils 5.504, BL3 0.00250 2. .45 44 3 7007 4.8S8 3. eft 0.639 C8tt 1.0 0.03110 6.74 -0.5232 ,.349 -1 825 2.194

" l'{ 8:881j8 i?:}2i:*j 8:181: .:He  :!:8ti i:1?*

lI3 8:884.8 :1:Hta -8:nt :t:lli -4: tit ila 8:88198 2 " "  ?:11 -8:4l86 1:t:I :l:lti  !:lli  ;

l. .

o L ,. -

N.

a t

fI i

I L

t l- TABLE III

{

"BEST FIT" CONDITIONS FOR GAINESTON (Comparison between Calculated and Observed Hydrographs) ,

-!  ?

i SUM OF PERCENT AVERAGE PERCENT ERRORS RUN SQUARES OF DIFFERENCE AT FRONT MIDDLE BACK NUMBER (Times 106) BOTF CONSD DIFFERENCES MAXIMUM SURGE THIRD THIRD THIRD B28 1.2 1.6 0.0030 2.0 18.51 -1.3400 4.020 -0.157 4.741 BS1 1.2 1.4 0.0025 2.0 15.81 -1.1705 3.345 -0.5 04 4.477 <

B50 1.2 1.2 0.0022 2.0 13.96 -0.8051 2.922 -0.515 4.313 ui B49 1.2 1.0 0.0020 2.0 12.88 -0.2395 2.736 -0.230 4.295 B63 1.1 1.4 0.0023 2.0 14.75 -0.7408 3.149 -0.369 4.467 B36 1.0 1.6 0.0021 2.0 13.25 -1.5177 2.589 -1.375 3.884 B23 3.0 1.4 0.0020 2.0 12.53 -0.7113 2.622 -0.751 4.069 B34 1.0 1.2 0.0018 2.0 11.34 -0.2138 2.432 -0.538 3.979 I B21 1.0 1.0 0.0015 2.0 9.34 -0.2525 1.884 0.989 3.373 B2C 0.8 1.4 0.0015 2.0 9.34 -0.7125 1.833 -1.518 3.176 B3's 0.8 1.2 0.0013 2.0 8.10 -0.4662 1.648 -1.560 2.825

? 11 0.8 1.0 0.0011 2.0 6.85 -0.4980 1.336 -1.865 2.178 i

}

, All 0.8 1.0 0.0056 2.3333 7.26 -0.1701 1.669 -1.546 2.524 4

e i

? , e

. .- - . - . - --~ ~ - -

---

.----:-~-

51

2. There is not a significant d.ifferent between using values of CONSD of 2.0 or 2.3333, except for the '

range of BOTF to obtain Best Fit.

3. There is not a significant difference between using

" surge only" or a dynamic tide condition.

In reviewing the.best fit conditions using a dynamic tide as tabulated in Table III, ranges in values of 0.8 x 10-6 to

-6 1.0 x 10 for CSK1 and of 1.0 x 10 -6 to 1.4 x 10

-6 for CSK2 give the best calibration of computed hydrographs to the recorded hydro-graph. As either CSK1 increases above 1.0 x 10-6 or CSK2 increases above 1.4 x 10 -6 the following occurs:

1. sum of squares of differences become too large

2. poorer fit is obtained at the front and back por-tions of the hydrograph with the recorded hydro-graphs falling further below the recorded hydrograph.

The best calibration is obtained for a CSK1 of 0.8 x 10-6 and a

-6 CSK2 of-1.0 x 10 ,

The Galveston traverse was initially run for the surge only condition. When the discrepancies of conflicting tide data were resolved (see Section 4.3.2.1) , the dynamic tide conditions

were run. After the dynamic tide runs were completed, a discrepancy I of 0.37 feet was discovered in the tidal datum plane correction factor. Therefore, check runs were performed labeled CB (preceding the check run number as displayed in Table II) to confirm that no

, . . ,7

52 c.

significant change in values resulted for the new 0.37 foot offset of the input hydrograph and initial surge value. Reference to the results shown in Table II indicate negligible effect due to this offset error.

4.4.7.2 Hurricane Carla - Sabine Pass Traverse The calibration results of the Sabine Pass traverse are given in. Tables IV and V for the cases of surge only and of surge with dynamic tide, respectively.

The calibration results of the Sabine Pass traverse yield '

a calculated hydrograph which did not exhibit as good a correlation with the input hydrograph as in the case of the Galveston traverse.

The calculated hydrograph was skewed with respect to the recorded hydrograph. The average percent errors between the calculated and recorded hydrographs computed on each one-third portion of the cal-culated hydrograph reveals this pattern of skewness. In almost all cases run, the front third of the calculated hydrograph lies be-low the recorded hydrograph while the middle and back third por-tions of the calculated hydrograph lie above the recorded

, hydrograph.

This skewness is e.obably indicative of the fact that the two hydrographs being compared are not representative of the same point. The calculated hydrograph is represetnative of the surge nydrograph which occurred at the open coast. However, the hydro-graph, to which the calculated hydrograph was compared, was recorded in a channel which leads into the Gulf of Mexico (see Figure 11) and hence, has undoubtedly been altered by frictional and convergence

(

effects.

s

.n . - , . . . _ . _ ,

1 1

53

• i 7ASLE IV - RE5uL75 FOR SA8tNE PASS 74& VERSE 15 URGE ONLY C0'au!710NI AVERAGE PERCEN7 ERRORS OF CALCULATED CUR Ru4 7tPES 410**61 SUM OF SouaRES PERCEN7 OlFFEREtaCE FRON7 M100LE 8ACK .

NUMeER C5K1 CSE2 807F CON 50 0F DIFFERENCE 5 47 MAXIMUM SuGE THIRO THIRD THluD 8002 1.1 1.4 0.00400 2 00000 12.29 7.2006 18.882 -2 823 3 128 8001 0.00700 27 59 17.7050 33.960 10.659 13.917 7001 11 1.4 0.01000 2.33330 24.92 -10.2258 -0.35 -24.713 -14.580 7002 0.00700 57.33 -22.2495 -12.626 -39 297 *27.540 8009 10 1.4 0.00280 2.00000 10.62 2.2333 10.683 -9.814 -2.010 8013 0.00250 12.21 -0.7721 7.110 -13 565 -5.181 8007 0.00400 13 27 10.5854 . 21.253 0.714 6. 722 8003 0.00200 19.96 -7.2446 -0.219 -21.574 -12.056 8011 0.00200 19.96 -7.2446 -0 219 -21.574 -12 056 7011 1.0 14 0.01300 2.33330 11.56 0.9828 10.971 -11.466 -2.736 7013 0.01250 12.18 -0.2177 9.494 -12.937 -4.04a 7004 0.01200 12.87 -1.1623 S.562 -14.118 -5.006 7003 0.01000 18.69 -4 3853 2 908~ -20.527 -10.569 8015 08 1.0 0.00180 2.00000 8.79 2.0814 2.957 -11.620 -4.110 8019 0.00170 11.02 -0.4498 0.519 -14.658 -6.860 8017 0.,00150 14.57 -3.3517 -2 193 -18.122 -10.027 7005 0.8 1 0'O.(0900 2.33330 8.42 2.9716 5.763 -10 441 -2.e15 7010 0.00860 9 12 1 8721 4.876 -11.764 -3 977 7012 0.00810 10.61 0.0089 2.998 -13.974 -6.052 I

o . . . , ._ _ _ _ _ , _ ,

54 Table V - RESULT 5 FOR SA8tNE P45,5 7AAVERSE 10Y4AMIC Tf0E CONotTIONI AVERAGE PERCENT t4RONS OF CALCULAft0 CU4W dun TIMc5 (10**68 $UM OF SCU4dE5 PE1 CENT DIFFE4ENCE FdO47 MIDDLE bACK -

NUM8Ed C541 C542 BQ7F C0150 0F OIFFE4ENCES A7 Maxtuum SoRGE Th!RO IHIMO Te< ! R O C0033 1.2 16 0.003%Q 2.00000 13.20 0.9659 10.786 -7.771 -1.578~

C0032 0.00330 13.70 -0.2756 9.470 -9 226 -2.692 C8031 0.00320 14.10 -0.9409 U.772 -10.006 -3.291 C8030 0.00300 15.28 -2.3716 7.289 -11.676 -4.5s2 C8021 1.4 0.00320 11.99 0.9082 9 231 -7.780 -1 611 C8020 0.00300 12.70 -0.*e61 7.800 -9.405 -2.873 8010 1.0 1.4 0.00290 2.00000 10 15 0.2001 u.202 -b.115 -1 271 Cs014 0.00210 10.42 0.5832 6.471 -e.1st -1 636 C4014A 0.00268 10.51 0.4187 6 314 -e.372 -1.78i s014 0.00270 10.55 -0.6605 7.337 -9.121 -2.073 C80148 0.00266 10.61 0.2523 6.154 -8.564 -1.938 C8014C 0.06263 10.78 -0.0009 5.912 -d.uS7 -2 171 8012 0 00250 11.8F -2.5363 5.440 -11.312 -J. e2 6 4005 0.00400 12.33 7.8193 16.241 0.862 5.762 7009 1.0 14 0.01320 2.33330 11.04 -0.8795 8 394 -1 356 7000 -1.794 0.01300 ,11.24 -1.2422 8.047 -9.775 -2.13S 8016 0.8 10 0.00200 2.00000 6.9d 1.1122 4 589 -6.679 8010 -0.474 0.00191 7.63' -0.1503 3.515 -8.122 -1 692 C4006 0.00140 0.51 -0.2065 2.161 -e.676 -2 473 8006 0.00100 8.71 -1.6523 2.150 -9.834 2005 -3 18d 0.00400 17.78 15 1840 17.717 9.641 12.ht=

8004 0.00600 33.83 21.3991 24.450 16.997 16.526 7007 0.0 1.0 0 00900 2.33330 8 26 -0.8068 4.395 -8.773 7006 -2.08d 0.00600 24.e0 -11.7684 -4.990 -21.111 -13.014 i

i 1

4 l

-- . -,,.m.e-1

- , m - ._ i., , ,, , .. , }

._ __ ._ _____m_.- _ . _ - _ _ _ _ . . _ _ . _ _ _ _ . .

55 r

In reviewing the results of Tables IV and V the following trends are observed when comparing combinations of CSKl and CSK2 with BOTF's of better fit:

1. Increasing values of CSK1 and CSK2 result in:

a. increasing the sum of squares of differences

b. obtaining a greater degree of skewness with higher average percent errors for front and back portions of the hydrograph. .

c. obtaining slightly higher negative values of average percent errors for the middle third of the hydrograph (also high magnitude; around -9%).

2. There is a better fit condition for runs including a dynamic tide.

I

3. There is a slightly better fit condition for runs j using a CONSD value of 2.0.

I The"best fit"of the runs shown in Tables IV and V are shown in Table VI. In reviewing Table VI the"best fit" conditions for the Sabine Pass traverse are for CSKl values ranging from

-6 0.8 x 10 to 1.0 x 10 -6 and for CSK2 values ranging from 1.0 x 10 -6

-6 to 1.4 x 10 . For higher values of CSK1 and CSK2 the sum of squares of differences becomes large and the skewness becomes sig-nificant'with the computed front third of the hydrograph signifi-cantly below the recorded hydrograph. The best calibration is

-6 -0 obtained for CSK1 of 0.8 x 10 and CSK2 of 1.0 x 10 .

.-.7-.. ,, m .

i TABLE VI ,

t "BEST FIT" CONDITIONS FOR SABINE PASS TRAVERSE AVERAGE PERCENT ERRORS l D GRW AT SUM OF j RUN CSK1 CSK2 MAXIMUM SQUARES OF FRONT MIDDLE BACK f I NUMBER (Times 10-6 BOTF CONSD SURGE DIFFERENCES THIRD THIRD THIRD l 8013 1.0 1.4 0.0025 2.000 -0.7721 12.21 7.110 -13.565 -5.181 7013 1.0 1.4 0.0125 2.3333 -0.2177 12.18 9.494 -12.937 -4.048

?

8019 0.8 1.0 0.0017 2.000 -0.4498 11.02 0.519 -14.658 -6.860 7012 0.8 1.0 0.0081 2.3333 0.0089 10.61 2.998 -13.974 -6.052 $

C8032 1.2 1.6 0.0033 2.0 -0.2756 13.20 9.470 - 9.226 -2.692 C8020 1.2 1.4 0.0030 2.0 -0.4861 12.70 7.800 - 9.405 -2.873 8014 1.0 1.4 0.0027 2.0 -0.6605 10.55 7.337 - 9.121 -2.073 C8014C 1.0 1.4 0.00263 2.0 -0.0009 10.78 5.912 - 8.857 -2.171 f

7009 1.0 1.4 0.0132 2.3333 -0.8795 11.04 8.394 - 9.356 -1.794 j

[ 8018 0.8 1.0 0.0019 2.0 -0.1503 7.63 3.515 - 8.122 -1.692 ,

7007 0.8 1.0 0.0090 2.3333 -0.8068 8.26 4.395 - 8.773 -2.088  ;

9 A

I i I I

- - . . -- - . . . ~ - - - . . . . - . . . . ..

57 1

r^  :

After performing the calibration runs on Sabine Pass a 1 tidal datum discrepancy was discovered which is discussed in Sec-tion 4.3.2.2. Therefore, run numbers C8006 and C8014 were run as 1

check cases to their original runs and the results show negligible error due to the tidal datum change. The remaining run numbers  ;

beginning with the letter C were additional runs performed using the corrected tidal datum.

4.4.7.3 Hurricane Audrey - Eugene Island Traverse .

The results of the calibration runs performed for the  !

Eugene Island traverse are shown'in Table VII. In light of the results obtained in the analysis of Hurricane Carla, dynamic tide and a constant value of CONSD = 2.0 was used in the calibration per-formed.for Hurricane Audrey. It may be observed from the results of Table VII that it was possible, in most cases, to obtain a "best fit "

on the basis of the criteria of peak surge and central portion of hydrcJraph matching. The front and back portions of the calculated hydrographs, however, are consistently above the observed hydro-graph. The reason for this is not clear. However, a possible cause of this discrepancy may be d'ae to the location of the recording gage.

The island on which the gage is located acts as an anomalous part of the shelf bathymetry, resulting in a localized rapid change of the shelf slope. This localized effect may not be adequately handled by the mathematics of the hurricane model.

Table VIII shows the runs listed in Table VII that best.

satisfy the major criteria for ' test-fit" correlation. It is .Aear

58 l g.

7ASLE Vil - HESULf5 FOR EUGENE ISLAND TRAVERSE IDYNAMIC TIDE CONutfl01)

AVERAGE PERCENT ERR 045 OF CALCULATED CU49 20N TIMES 110**61 Sum 0F SwUARES PERCENT O!FFERENCE F RO*47 MIDDLE BACK NUM8ER C541 C542 sofF CON 50 UF DIFFERENCc5 AT MAXIMUM SURGE THIRD THIRD in!Ru C37 1.2 14 0.01200 2.00000 15.85 -3 2609 -11.853 0.224 -31.824 C36 0.01100 16 12 -3.5928 -12.222 -0.072 -12.121 C33 0.01000 17.46 -4.5900 -13.492 -1.10e -33.79e C31 1.1 1.4 0.00950 2.00000 14.71 -2.0715 -11 168 1 162 -30.222 C30 0.00900 14.86 -2 2856 -11 4G2 0.965 -30.436 C28 0.00700 15.54 -3 2241 ~-12.384 0.109 -31 284 C27 0 00600 16.41 -3.9024 -13.106 -0.537 -32.011 C24 0.00400 19.22 -6.3560 -15 834 -3.012 -35.333 C32 10 1.4 0 00000 2 00000 13.70 -0.7192 -10.317 2.202 -23.66e C29 0.00700 13.90 -1 1583 -10.755 1.006 -29.018 C23 0.00500 15 13 -2 7296 -12.431 0.272 -30.872 C22 0.00400 16.08 -3.7784 -13.517 .-0 768 -32.105 C14 0.00350 22.89 -7.3967 -18.221 -4.757 -39 271

. C13 0.00300 24 15 -0 1847 -19.008 -5.565 -40.26%

C2h 12 0.00450 13.66 -0.5710 -10 8E9 1 819 -29.039 C25 0.00400 14.03 -1.1103 -11.439 1.280 -29.687 Ctt 0.8 1.0 0.00180 2.00000 10.91 1 3942 -1 974 1.716 's.518 C19 0.00170 11.09 1 2442 -2 108 1 559 -5 666 C35 0.00120 13 33 0.58?J -10.825 1.065 -50 311 C34 0.00.00 14 16 -0.3673 -11 646 -0.042 -31.890 C16 06 0.8 0.00080 2 00000 10 66 9.9136 -1 814 8.810 -19.324 C15 0.00090 10.86 10 4289 -1.402 9.436 -18.371 C21 0.00070 11.34 6.7818 -5.681 5.212 -25 989 n ~ r* . Lg- p . ..w.mc ..__,,..,n.,,_. , _

li 3

TABLE VIII i "BEST FIT" RUNS FOR EUGENE ISLAND TRAVERSE ll 1

i CSKl CSK2 j- Run um quares Percent Difference. Average Percent Error

'j Number T.imes 10 6 BOTF- of Differences at Maximum Surge of Middle Third l

i C36 1.2 1.4 .011 16.12 -3.5928 .072 C27 1.1 1.4 .006 16.41 -3.9024 .537

.1 C28 1.1 1.4 .007 16.54 -3.2241  !'

0.109 I

C23 1.0 1.4 .005 15.13 -2.7296 0.272 $ l t

C34 0.8 1.0 .001 14.16 .3673 .042 I t t;

b -

l .

- - ~ . . - , - - - - . ~ - . . . . . - - - . _ - - - . - . _ . - . - . _ . . . - , - . . .

60

/

from the results shown in Table VIII that the best correlation ob-tained between the calculcted and observed hydrograph occurs for run C34 with CSK1 and CSK2 values of 0.8 x 10 -6 and 1.0 x 10

-6 4.4.7.4 Hurricane of October 3, 1949 - Freeport Traverse The hydrograph used for the Freeport Traverse was obtained from a gaga which is located in a channel'which leads into the Gulf of Mexico (Figure 19) . The record from this gage will have incorpo-rated in it any effects due to friction and convergence which acted -

on the surge as is traveled inland. Hence, the recorded hydrograph is not a true representation of the surge which was experienced at the coast. Since the Dames & Moore model is designed to predict only an open coast surge it would not be expected that this hurri-

! cane would yield satisfactory results on which to base a calibra-j tion analysis. This is indeed shown by reference to the results of the correlation analysis listed in Table IX. Reference to the listed results indicate that the calculated hydrograph is extremely skewed relative to the observed hydrograph with the predicted peak 1

surge value less than the observed value in almost all cases except )

-6 where BOTF was less than 0.0001 fer CSK1 = 1.2 x 10 and CSK2 =

1.4 x 10 -6 or 1.6 x 10 -6 ,

Although it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from.the data of Table IX, certain observations may be made. As 1

was noted in the prior correlation analyses, the sum of the squares I of differences between the calculated and observed hydrograph tends to increase as.the values of CSK1 and CSK2 increase. However, in the present case, this increase is predominant'only whe2. CSKl and

- . ~ - - - - - - - . - . . . - , - .- - - -

. . . . - _ _ . . _ _ _ . . . - . . . - , . _ _ _ . _ _ . ._. __. _ . _ _ , . m.

61 f

. 7AeLE lx - RE5utf 5 F04 F4EEP047 trave 45E (Sutt.E LNLY CONulf!ONI ave 4AGt PE4CEN7 t44C45 GP CALCULATED CodvE ,

sJ" LF Swca4E5 PC4CE47 L1FFiat'.CE F43 7 "100LE L&;*

4Jt 78955 110**al NuM134 C561 CSU bJte CC'e 50 3F OtFFE48.4Ci5 Af maxt"JM 5J4ut THt4L TH t 41, fet idu d15 1.J 16 0.00010 2.G00e0 7.60 -1.75m1 -23.435 =0.764 10.744 410 0'.00000 7.63 -3 2027 -24.410 -4.370 4.362 412 0.000e0 a.44 2.7;oD -22 124 6.541 to.ast 288 0.000du e.52 1.1130 -d1.931 7.145 19.211 205 0 00100 8.59 3 4414 -21.757 7.652 19.500 217 14 0.00010 6 29 0.5785 -22.025 0.413 8.c!*

210 0.00000 6.30 -0.7 eon -22.514 -4 945 2 725 414 C.000h0 7 21 4.6990 -10.3*4 7.424 16. 2 7V 4 O.00040 7.30 5.07e7 -20.J10 7.702 16 63s

. 0.00100 7.39 5.=317 -20.042 s.262 16.44*

204 10 1.4 0 00010 2.uo000 4.49 4.0tS6 -19 130 2.162 4 610 210 0.00000 4.70 2.9323 -1#.513 -0 674 -0.189 207 0.00010 5.70 7.9=61 -17.5eo 6.562 11 7t,3 tus 0.001c.s 5.79 6 2534 -17.=ss 6 4e7 12.023

1. 0* 0.00231 6.66 tt.lett -15.811 12.767 18 202 203 0.00300 7.14 13.9154 - 16. 0 'e s 15.260 12.210 202 0.00600 7.23 16 5787 -13 547 15.767 11 70s 10% 10 14 0.00e30 2.33330 6.36 10.7403 -lo.121 11.915 12 6*c 123 0.00420 6 37 7.9396 -21.267 8.106 6 479 J24 0.n 10 0.00000'J.00000 3.42' 11.e622 -12.224 4.839 -4.33o 221 0.00010 1.49 12.6176 -11.970 6. 742 -3.015 240 0.00020 9.63 13 1203 -18.780 7.736 -16's2 J19 0 00040 4.06 14 2056 -11.378 9.621 0.68d 231 0.00100 4.60 15.4488 -10.857 11.507 2. 52 6

- 105 0.e 10 0.00500 4.33360 4 37 15.0271 -11 012 10.800 1.614 102 0.00450 4.74 15 8096 -6 094 6.e04 1.418 4

I l l

1

• 1 1

• ' M' *M

? '*t*M.***** m-,%..-e, , . , , g ,,g

. . . - . : ~ -

- -. - -. J. - . - .. -.-

62 CSK2 increase beyond the values of 1.0 x 10 -6 and 1.4 x 10 -6 ,

respectively. Further, it may be noted that the calculated peak

+

surge value only approaches the corresponding observed value as the above magnitude of CSK1 and CSK2 are approached. Hence, in the present case, the results would suggest the choice of higher values of CSK1 and CSK2 than found for the previously described investi-gating. Further, the indicated value of the bottom friction factor (BOTF) for the present case is negligibly small, being on the order -

of 0.0001.

4.4.7.5 Hurricane Carol - Narragansett Bay Traverse The hydrograph data for Narragansett Bay is a composite of the shape of a hydrograph taken from the Providence record at the northern end of the b:y, and the debris and high water marks observed in Coasters Harbor (Figure 23) . The hydrograph data con-sists of only seven values of time related surge. Hence significant statistical correlation in this case is not possible. The results obtained from the analysis of this data are shown in Table X where dynamic tide was included. As .nay be observed from the listed re-suits, the front and back third portions of the calculated hydro- l 1

graph were above the recorded hydrograph. The middle third por- l tion of the calculated hydrograph was much lower in value than the middle third portion of the recorded hydrograph. l As previously pointed out, little significance can be at-tached to this particular data. However, there is an indication from the results shown in Table X that the overall deviation of the l

m_____._ . . .

._ ._- .___ _ _ , ~ _ _ _ . . . _ _ _ _ . _ . _ _ _ _ . _ _ , .__ _

63 e

f 748LE x - RESUL75 FOR NamACA45E77 84Y 74AVEE5E (0YNAMIC FIDE CON 017tJNI Avf 4 AGE PE4CEN7 EAR 045 0F CALCUL47EO Cua

. auN Fimts (10**68 50M OF 50uaaE5 PENCENT OlFFidtNCE Fa0N7 M100LE sack NUMBER C541 C542 837F CON 50 0F DIFFE4ENCt5 A7 maalman SumuE THluo FMItu 7 mima C235 1.8 2.2 0.00000 2.00000 21.64 -1.9414 10.356 23.493 59.878 C234 0.00010 21.67 -1.4059 10.750 24.711 48.545 C233 16 2.2 0.00000 2.00000 21 23 0.5527 11.450 25.210 51.3's?

C232 *0.00010 21.45 1.0409 11.793 25.952 41.870 C230A 2.0 0 00000

• 20.56 1.9486 11.539 C230 25.645 44.451 0.00010 21.09 2.4974 12.097 26.505 17.007 C231 1.5 2.0 0 00000 2 00000 20.76 3.2778 12.306 26.442 C2314 0.00010 41 065 20.89 3.5762 12.179 26.940 32.571 C213 12 1.6 0.00000 2.00000 21.81 10.1111 14.794 C210 0.00010 22.44 29.686 18.544

• 10. 4 e.21 15.028 30.232 14.266 C219 0.000>0 22.78 10.8528 15.207 30 527 14.243 C216 0 00100 23 24 11 1732 15.290 30.892 14.307 C214 10 1.4 0.00000 2 00000 23.79 14.2378 16.429 31.70s C211 0.00010 6.215 24.42 14 5273 16.612 12 164 3.119 C220 0.00040 24.69 14 8372 16.764 C217 0 00100 32.378 2.969 25.07 15.0e11 16.us2 32 648 3 05*

C215 0.8 1.0 0.00000 2.00000 27.79 13.9929 18.601 34.433 C212 0.00010 28 36 -10.682 C221 20 2078 18.733 34.782 -12.414 0.000M 28.58 20.4263 18.e45 34.917 -12.647 C218 0.00100 28.64 20.5857 18.907 35.344 -12.513 e

4 0

m e

G d

. , , , . .w_-,,9 -% -m +.w. ****+->*'*% e*- *"-'4"* ' ' *"*Y' ' " * * ' - " ""' ~"

• • Y"# "M" '= "

I 64 j

1 calculated hydrograph r. elative to the input hydrograph is less, the higher the values of CSK1 and CSK2. Moreover, the calculated peak surge closely matches the observed peak surge for values of CSK1 and CSK2 in excess of 1.5 x 10-6 -6 and 2.0 x 10 , respectively.

It may be further noted that the indicated value of the bottom friction coefficient (BOTF) is very low (on the order of 0.0001). 1 l

4.4.8 Evaluation Methodology Tables I through X list the statistical results of the calculated hydrographs compared to the observed hydrographs for the calibration runs performed. The purpose and significance of the methods of calibration and the criteria used in defining best fit are described in Section 4.4.6.

Using these criteria it was determined that only the re-sults for the Galveston traverse truly satisfied test fit" conditions.

The results for the Sabine Pass and Eugene Island traverses closely approximated these criteria while the results for the Freeport traverse only satisfied several of the criteria for good correla-tion. The results for the Narragansett Bay traverse were shown to be statistically meaningless yielding only general trend observations.

The results of the correlation analysis show that in the cases of the Galveston, Sabine Pass, and Eugene Island traverses, best fit is achieved at values of CSK1 and CSK2 of 0.8 x 10-6 and 1.0 x 10-6, respectively. In the case of the poorer correlation

65 obtained for the Freeport traverse, the best results were observed

-6 for values of CSK1 and CSK2 of about 1.0 x 10 -6 and 1.4 x 10 .

respectively. Final'ly, even though the results for the Narragansett Bay traverse were very poor, it was observed that a better match at the peak surge value was obtained for values of CSKl and CSK2 in ex-cess of the above ranges.

The criteria discussed in Section 4.4.6 for "be st fit" correlation consists of four points. In summary, these points, in .

order of importance, may be listed as follows:

1. The m'aximum calculated surge must be greater than that observed.

2. The middle third of the calculated hydrograph must, on the average, be greater than the corresponding portion of the observed hydrograph.

3. The deviation between the calculated hydrograph and the observed hydrograph (exemplified by the sum of squares of differences) should be a minimum.

4. The front and back third of the calculated hydrograph relative to the observed hydrograph should exhibit a minimum skewness with a minimum error being desirable.

In the case of the Galveston traverse, the criteria 1 and 2 were achieved for the entire rangt of CSKl and CSK2 values investi-gated'. The fourth criterion tended to be better achieved for the lower..rtnge of CSK1 and CSK2 values. A very strong trend, however,

l 66

(

was noted in the case of criterion 3 with a significant optimiza-tion being achieved ,for the lower CSK1 and CSK2 values.

The Sabine Pass and the Eugene Island results exhibited, essentially, the same trends noted above for the Gavleston traverse.

However, in both cases, the satisfaction of criterion 4 for lower CSK1 and CSK2 values was more prominant than that noted for i

Galveston and, in the case of Eugene. Island, the trend noted rela-tive to the third criterion was less pronounced. "

The Freeport traverse results showed poor satisfaction of criterion 4 with a satisfaction of criteria 1 and 2 for values of CSK1 and CSK2 approximating 1.0 x 10 -6 and 1.4 x 10 -6 , respectively.

Criterion 3 was best satisfied at these or lower values of CSK1 and CSK2.

Finally, the results obtained for the Narragansett Bay traverse did not satisfy any of the stst=2 urib. iia. The only ob-servation possible from these results was that a trend toward better correlation was obtained for the upper range of CSK1 and CSK2 values investigated, which were far in excess of values investigated for the other traverses.

In summary, it would appear that the results obtained for

.Galveston, Sabine Pass, and Eugene Island indicate values of CSK1 and CSK2 of 0.8 x 10 -6 and 1.0 x 10 -6 , respectively. The results obtained for Freeport, on the other hand, indicate higher values for these parameters. This is further indicated by the limited observations from the Narragansett Bay results. Hence, to ensure l

_ _ _ . _ , _ _ _ . ._ . _ . - ~ . _ . . __ _ . _ _ . _ . _.

67

/

conservativeness in predicted storm surge calculations and to use the best correlation results from all the data of record (with minimum emphasis on the Narragansett Bay traverse data) it is con-cluded that the values of CSK1 and CSK2 should be larger than

-6 0.8 x 10 and 1.0 x 10 -6 , respectively. In reviewing the results from the best data available (Galveston traverse) with the results from the Freeport analysis (results indicating the largest CSKl and CSK2 values) it is the judgment of Dames & Moore that, on the basis ~

of conservatism and accuracy of correlation, the values of CSKl and CSK2 should be 1.0 x 10 -6 and 1.4 x 10 -6 , respectively.

4.4.9 Summary of Results for Investigated Hydrographs The results of the correlation studies of recorded hydro-graphs are summarized in the following table.

TABLE XI

SUMMARY

OF "BEST FIT" CONDITIONS WHEN CONSIDERING ALL HYDROGRAPHS DEGREE'oF CSKl CSK2 HURRICANE TRAVERSE CORRELATION (TIMES 100) BOTF CONSD Carla Galveston strong 1.0 1.4 .002 2.0 Carla Sabine Pass fair 1.0 1.4 .0027 2.0 Audrey Eugene fair to 1.0 1.4 .004 to 2.0 Island poor .007 1949 Freeport poor 1.0 1.4 less than 2.0

.0001 Carol Naragansett nil - - - -

Bay

68 f

Table XI and Figure 28 show that the best correlation was obtained in the case of Hurricane Carla - Galveston traverse. The next best correlation was also obtained for Hurricane Carla - Sabine Pass traverse (Table XI and Figure 29) . J Marinos and Woodward (Reference 7) have shown that there is a direct relationship between the value of bottom friction coef-  ;

ficient and the length of the continental shelf along the traverse.

In their investf.Tation, Marinos and Woodward took the bottom fric- .

tion effect to be inversely proportional to the seven thirds (7/3) power of the total depth while the present study uses the square power of the total depth. It is of interest, however, to compare ,

\

the friction coefficients obtained by Marinos and hoodward and the

, coefficients obtained in the present study in the case of the Galveston and Sabine Pass traverses.

rv Bottom Friction Coefficient Traverse Length Present Study Marinos & Woodward  !

Sabine Pass long . 0027 .03 Galveston medium .002 .02 As 'an be seen, the coefficients used in the present study are about one-tenth of the corresponding values used in the investigation of Marinos and Woodward.

The lack of strong correlation found in this present study

. between observed and computed hydrographs (other than in the two cases noted) makes it difficult to predict bottom friction factors for shelf lengths greater than Sabine or shorter than Galveston.

.- , .-.s ,-w.,.p.e.

• w =- +.m.s-- e.-- 4 .m e* - w W-st" ~w-*J* " ' ' * * " * - - ~ * * * ' ~ ~ ' ' " * - ' * *.-

__ "I*

l 69 l However, an appropriate value of the bottom friction may be esti-mated by comparison of the bottom profile with those of Galveston and Sabine Pass (see' Figures 7 and 12 and Reference 7).

In the case of Hurricane Camille, wind data was obtained along a traverse intersecting the coast at Biloxi, Mississippi (see Sections 4.3.6 and 4.4.10) . The bottom profile used is shown in Figure id. Comparison of this profile with those of Galveston and Sabine Pass shows that the Biloxi traverse is slightly shorter than the Galveston traverse. Hence, a conservative value to be used for the bottom friction coefficient for the case of Camille, Biloxi traverse would be BOTF = 0.002, In the case of the investigation for the Crystal River, Florida site (see Section 6) the bottom profile indicates a shelf Jength in excess of that of Sabine (see Figures 12 and 34). Hence, a conservative value to be used for the bcttom friction coefficient in this case would be BOTF = 0.003.

4.4.10 Hurricane Camille - Biloxi Traverse Since a complete and accurate hydrograph was not available for Camille, (but rather only a peak surge elevation) this hurricane was used to cross-verify the correlation results from the previous five traverses. It is determined in a previous section (Section 4.4.8), that the values of CSK1 and CSK2 are 1.0 x 10-6 and 1.4 x 10-6, respectively, while the value of CONSD is taken to be 2.0.

Due to the short length of the Biloxi traverse relative to the Galveston traverse, a bottom. friction coefficient of 0.002 was used. The combination of these parameters with the input data for l._ ._..- .

-mn+

70

?

Hurricane Camille (listed in Appendix D) and the Dames & Moore mathematical model yielded a maximum elevation of 19.41 feet MLW (Reference 23).

The recorded high water marks in the vicinity of Biloxi ranged from 18.5 feet MSL to 19.5 MSL or 19.15 feet MLW to 20.15 feet MLW. These high water marks include the effect of wave-induced runup (Appendix D and Reference 19) which was estimated to have had a minimum value of one foot. This yields maximum flooded elevations withouc runup between 18.15 feet MLW and 19.15 feet MLW. Hence, the value calculated by the Dames & Moore model, of 19.41 feet MLW appears to be quite credible.

l l

l y m _, -*_,.s ..,., .--.---.---.v~ -..,-3,>+--~~ ~ . - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ - -

- < a r gm'.

> e*-

-- *" m frv9 5

'~-N6 -% ,

i e

d N

ft E e=C num 3 3 en e

~

• ' -m.__ $-l? ' k

71 t

5.

SUMMARY

OF STORM SURGE MODEL VERIFICATION Section 2 of this report presented a description of Dames & Moore's hurricane storm surge model and attendant com-puter program. The numerical scheme upon which the program is based was tested by comparing the program output to theoretical results for several hypothetical problems for which analytical solutions could be effected (Section 3). It was shown that negli-gible error was indicated in comparing the program output with the -

theoretical results. The conclusion was thus reached that the numerical methods used in solving the field equations indigenous to the storm surge model are extremely accurate, lending a high degree of credibility to Dames & Moore's computer program.

It has previously been pointed out that the major dif-ference in the utilization of Dames & Moore's model and that used by CERC involves the form used for the wind stress coefficient.

The form of this coefficient as used in Dames & Moore's program has been demonstrated to be:

k= CSK1 + CSK2 (1 - Ug /U) (1.17P/29. 92) where P = barometric presquIe, inches Hg U

n is taken to be 15 mph U is the wind velocity in mph CSKl'and CSK2 are constants and k is independent of U if U is less than or equal to U .g The values of the coefficients CSK1 and CSK2 were determiLad by cor-

-relating the output of Dames & Moore's program to storm surge l l

1

. . . . . . . . . . . _ - ~ --_

. . . . . . .. . _ _ . . ~ . . - _

~ ~ ~

.;__.. - _ . . _ . -_~

72 i

hydrographs of record. These hydrographs were produced by the following hurricanes of record:

1. Carla - Hydrographs at both Galveston and Sabine Pass

2. Hurricane of 1949 - Hydrograph at Brazos Port

3. Carol - Hydrograph (based on rubble line) at I

Newport, Rhode Island

4. Audrey - Hydrography at Eugene Island 5 Camille - Peak surge value, as indicated by.the .

rubble line, at Biloxi, Mississippi.

It was determined that a"best fit"to the above data was obtained using Dames & Moore's mathematical model in conjunction with the values of CSK1 = 1.0 x 10-6 and CSK2 = 1.4 x 10

-0 and the CONSD and BOTF values listed in Table XI. The choice of appropriate wind stress coefficients is based on somewhat subjec-tive criteria. However, considering the quality of the observed I data, it is felt that the use of the above values of the coeffi-cients adequately predict the most important regions of the ob-served hydrographs as well as the observed peak surge values.

Hence, it appears that the Dames & Moore mathematical model will conservatively predict a PMH condition.

I I

g

/= n ('.. i' YD /h h' H [ q g % 4-

[

'C .

h N

~N 4o En W Y&

NN

\. -

1 N

• - ~ ~ . ,..___

.. 9

73

6. CRYSTAL RIVER FLOOD STUDY f

6.1 Introduction This section presents the results of the application of D&M's hurricane model for the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant, Crystal River, Florida. The Crystal River Plant is located at latitude 28 57' on Florida's western coastline facing 'he c Gulf of Mexico as shown in Figures 30 and 31.

All elevations in this section unless otherwise indi-cated are in feet and refer to Mean Low Water Datum as zero.

The Crystal River Plant Datum elevation of 88 feet is zero on Mean Low Water Datum.

A PMH storm surge elevation of 29.6 feet MLW was pre-viously recommended by Dames & Moore for Crystal River Unit 3 i

Nuclear Plant. This value was filed with the Crystal River Unit 3 Docket No. 50-302 in Amendment 23 as Appendix 2C. The AEC and their consultant, CERC, calculated a PMH storm surge elevation of 33.4 feet MLW which is 3.8 feet higher than that value calcu-lated by Dames & Moore. The principal unresolved differences be-tween the values calculated by Dames & Moore and the AEC are the numerics of the two computer models and the form of the surface wind stress coefficient used in the two models. Other differ-ences, now resolved, are the value used for initial surge and the offshore distance for initiating reduction of the hurricane wind field.

The AEC used an initial surge of 0.6 feet whereas Dames

& Moore previously used a value of zero feet. Dames & Moore does 3h* e-e w e 4 eeNiee- *-* - - * *N'N***--**""*"v""* *P" ***N"' ""*#" * ' ' *' * + ' " ' ' ' " * ~ * * ' ' ' '

'~

74 not necessarily agree to using a value of 0.6 feet initial surge but, since there is lack of' sufficient documentation either sup-porting no value for initial surge or 0.G feet for initial surge, a value of 0.6 feet was used for initial surge at the Crystal River site. The AEC used a distance of two miles offshore for initiating i

reduction of the hurricane wind field whereas Dames & Moore pre-viously used a distance of three miles. This results in the AEC calculating a storm surge value of 0.05 feet higher than that by Dames & Moore. Thus, the AEC's two-mile offshore distance to in-itiate wind reductions was accepted.

Therefore, Dames & Moore's PMH storm surge elevation '

(that previously was 3.8 feet less than that of the AEC's) would 4

6 have been'about 3.1 feet'less than that'of the AEC when using an initial surge of 0.6 feet and initiating the wind reduction at two miles offshore. This difference of 3.1 feet would be attrib-uted to the differences in the numerics and the form used for the i

surface wind stress coefficient of the two models. These two dif-ferences are fully discussad and slyzed in the appropriate sections of this report.

The following hurricane study for Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant will use the results from Section 5 of this report.

6.2 PURPOSE The purpose of this study was to perform necessary hur-ricane analyses to conservatively establish plant design criteria for suitable hurricane protection of Class 1 structures. A plot plan of the Crystal River Nuclear Station is shown on Figure 32.

Q . --- --

_ . 7_ ., .-.

75 6.3 SCOPE The scope of this study included an evaluation of the following:

1. Probable maximum stillwater levels

2. Wind-generated waves

3. Wave runup

4. Minimum stillwater level 6.4 PROBABLE MAXIMUM STILLWATER LEVELS The probable maximum stillwater level will occur at the Crystal River site during the occurrence of the PMH producing the maximum storm surge coincidental with the high spring astronomical tide at the plant site.

The PMH surge was calculate (. by use of the bathystrophic

(

storm tide theory with the most severe hurricane parameters from ESSA Memorandum HUR 7-97. The PMH as defined by HUR 7-97 is'"A hypothetical hurricane having that combination of characteristics which will make it the most severe that can probably occur in the particular region involved. The hur-ricane should approach the point under study along a critical path and at optimum rate of movement." This analysis postulates the occurrence of such a storm which has such a critical combina-tion of parameters and criteria. I 6.4.1 General When a hurricane crosses the continental shelf and moves onshore, severe damage can be incurred by shore structures

.dus to flooding and wave action, unless these structures are

. , . . . . . . , , - . - ..-.n*.n,-...m. - - . . ....~~,--.,-.w.-.. - ~ - - . . , . , -

~._ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . - - _

76

^ Components of the stillwater level are properly designed.

the mean low water depth, the astronomical tide, the rise in water level due to the hurricane's atmospheric pressure reduction, wind stress component perpendicular to bottom contours (onshore wind component), and wind stress component parallel to the

, bottom contours which produces a 1cngshore flow that is deflected to the right (in the northern hemisphere) by the Coriolis force, I and the initial surge. This current parallel to the bottom contours is also known as the bathystrophic flow. Initial surge is a forerunner resulting in a slow general rise in sea level long before winds have arrived. It is determired by the speed of the hurricane in relation to the speed of free gravity long waves for particular depths and may result in amplification I

of hurricane surge.

6.4.2 Probable Maximum Hurricane Parameters

! Selection of the basic parameters to define the PMH was made from ESSA Memorandum HUR 7-97 along with other selected criteria to establish the most critical combination. Those parameters and criteria are as follows:

1. CPI (Po). A central pressure index (CPI) value of 26.70 inches of mercury was selected from Table 1* of HUR 7-97.

Values listed in. Table 1 for Yankeetown, Florida, Latitude 29 degrees, were selected due to its close proximity to Crystal River at Latitude 28 degrees, 57 minutes.

l l

l

~ , . _

m_,._._,_ _

77 s

2. Asymptotic Pressure (Pn). An asymptotic pressure value of 31.25 inches of mercury was selected from the PMH envelope curve from Figure 6 of HUR 7-97.

3. Radius of Maximum Winds (R). A small radius of maximum winds ..(RS) value of 6 nautical miles and a-large radius of maximum winds (EL) value of 24 nautical miles were selected from Table 3 of HUR 7-97. ,

4. Forward Translational Speed (Vt) . A slow transla-tional speed (ST) value of 4 knots and a high trans-lational speed (; H T) value of 20 knots were selected from Table 1 of HUR 7-97.

, 5. Maximur Wind Speed (Umax). Maximum wind speeds were c alculated using equations 2 and 3 of HUR 7-97 for combinations of radius of maximum winds and translational speeds. The following maximum wind speeds were used:

a) 149.8 miles per hour for RL = 24 nautical miles and NT = 20 knots.

b) 140.6 miles per hour for RL = 24 nautical miles and ST = 4 knots.

c) 152.1 miles per hour for RS = 6 nautical miles and HT = 20 knots.

l d) 142.9 miles per hour for RS = 6 nautical miles and ST = 4 knots.

l i

l 78 '

6. PMH Path. The path selected for PMH approach to the plant site area is a critical factor which in combination with PMH parameters determines the dura-tion and magnitude of storm wind intensity over the the critical fetch and the resulting peak hurricane surge elevation. The majority of record storms of major intensity approach the Crystal River area on a path from the southwest quadrant. The path re-sulting in peak hurricane surge will approach the -

site from approximately normal to the offshore bot-tom contours, therefore, one hurricane path selected was from 243 degrees or traveling toward the site in a direction N63 0E (true north), Figure 31. A i

second hurricane path from 270 degrees heading to-ward the site in a direction due east was used for comparison with the first path. The center of these hurricanes was passed north of the plant site by a distance that resulted in the maximum winds pass-ing directly over the site area, while the surge calculations were performed along a traverse line intersecting the site, bearing N63 E, Figure 31.

Since this traverse is approximately normal to the

offshore bottom contours, maximum surge heights are calculated.

~

7. Astronomical Tide. All tidal data have been de-rived from National Ocean Survey publications,

_ __ - . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . _ . . -_. -m J _

79 NOAA. Astronomical tides are of the mixed-

~

semidiurnal type with two highs and two lows occur-ring daily (with a higher high and lower low tide level). Tidal data near Crystal River is available at Cedar ' Keys and the Withlacoochee River mouth (Port Inglis). Data from Cedar Keys had been re-corded continuously between 1940 and 1970 and for an additional period from 1915 to 1925. Examina-i tion of long period sea level trends (Reference 24) 1 reveals that for the total period 1915 to 1970 there has been a total rise of sea elevation as related to the land of about 8 centimeters (about 0.2 foot) .

However, between 1940 and 1970 there has been essen-e tial stability in relative land-to-sea elevation; therefore there is no basis for evaluating prospec-tive sea level rise at this site as a matter of im-portance. A high spring tide of +4.3 feet MLW was derived on the basis of the mean of the highest tide occurring in the most frequent hurricane months, July through October. The predicted tidal cycle in Figure 33 was used with the storm surge hydrograph. l The high tide of 4.3 feet was considered to occur coincidental with the maximum storm surge at the i plant site.

8. Initial Surge. The AEC has requested that an initial surge of 0.6 feet be used for Crystal River as

.eN** w + _ ,u

-ww w

• s ew -ee e+ + m *4 wem es "N 2* ~- T

• e ear- * *Nw* -h-esete - _ _,

80 attributed to tidal anomaly evaluated on the basis of variations between observed and predicted tide. At this site such variations can only be attributed to atmospheric factors, i.e., atmospheric pressure patterns in the adjacent area and wind effects which l could produce a change in sea elevation. Since pre-  ;

i dictions involve sea level effects of the most ex-

]

treme evaluation of all atmospheric phenomena occur-ring, coincidentally with the high spring tide, there i I

is no apparent basis for adding a value for " initial rise" to the astronomical tide. However, since there is insufficient data to conclusively document whether or not an initial surge value attributed to nonpres-sure and nonwind effects should be included, a value of 0.6 feet initial surge was used in this study as requested by the AEC.

9. Bottom Friction Coefficient (K). A bottom friction coefficient of 0.003 was used in this analysis.

This bottom friction coefficient is partially a function of the slope and width of the continental shelf. It appears in the dissipation term of the flux equation presented in Section 2, Equation 1 of this report. A bottom friction coefficient of 0.003 is conservative for the crystal River site when using the calibrated surface wind stress coef-ficients listed in Section 5 and when the local

81 instantaneous water depth is squared in the dissi-pation term.

The calibration studies performed in this report do indicate that for wider offshore shelf widths, bottom friction coefficients increase. Based on re-sults from these calibration studies and from work performed by Marinos and Woodward (Reference 7), a bottom friction coefficient of 0.004 to 0.005 is representative for the wide shelf width offshore of the Crystal River site. This would result in a storm surge elevation of about 0.4 feet to 0.8 feet less than the value calculated when using a bottom friction coefficient of 0.003. Therefore, it was conservative in using a bottom friction coefficient of 0.003 for the Crystal River area.

10. Isovel Orientation. In theory the strongest winds are along a line 115 degrees clockwise from the di-rection of motion; therefore, a 115 degree clock-wise angle from the hurricane translational velocity vector to the primary radius of wind velocity dis-tribution was considered with the eye of the hur-ricane passing north of the Crystal River site by a sufficient distance to allow the maximum winds of the hurricane to pass directly over the site. Actual experience indicates that the orientation of the primary radius of wind velocity distribution can

_ ~ . _ . . _ _. _

- - . ._ _ .-- - - . . . . ~

82 '

range from 15 degrees clockwise to 165 degrees clockwise. Therefore, comparison was made to the 115 de'grees by also using 90 degrees and 140 degreas and passing the eye of the hurricane by a distance north of the site enabling the maximum winds to cross directly over the site.

j

11. Wind Speed Adjustment Near Shore. According to HUR 7-97, the computed overwater wind should be adjusted when moving onshore. In using Table 3 of HUR 7-97, the overwater wind field should be re-l duced from full value two to three miles offshore to .89 value at the shoreline. Hugo Goodyear, an author of HUR 7-97, confirmed that this considera-tion applied to the Crystal River area. To be con-servative the overwater wind field was reduced from full value two miles offshore to 0.89 value at the shoreline.

12. Surface Water Wind Stress Coefficient. The surface water wind stress coefficients used for the Crystal 1 River site were determined from the calibration work performed in Section 4.4 of this report. A value of 1.0 was used for the constant part of the wind stress coefficient (CSKl) while a value of 1.4 was used for the constant multiplier of the velocity -

dependent part of the wind stress coefficient (CSK2).

These values gave the best overall fit when cali-brating predicted surge hydrographs to historical i

<-- ~ + . . ~ . .~ n. - n. - ~. m n.~.....,,,, .__

. 83 m recorded surge hydrographs and also resulted in predicting a peak surge value that agreed with his-torical recorded peak surge salues of Hurricane Camille.

6.4.3 Procedures Surge elevations at the power plant site were computed using the bathystrophic storm tide theory as described by Marinos and Woodward (Reference 7). The Dames & Moore computer program described in Appendix B of this report was used in the calcula- -

tion procedure. Input data to the computer program consisted of the hurricane parameters and criteria discussed in this report, the wind field of the hurricane determined using procedures dis-cussed in RUR 7-97, and the offshore bottom profile to a depth 5

of 900 feet, An offshors bottom profile was constructed along a 0

traverse bearing true N63 E over the distance of 136.85 nautical miles to a depth of-900 feet as shown in Figure 34. The off-shore topography of the Crystal River area within approximately the first 35 miles is shown in detail on C&GS Map No. 1259 and e . best be described as concave, or saucer shaped, broken inter-mittently by a scattered series of submerged reefs. The off-shore topography extending to deep water is shown in detail on C&GS Map No. 1003. The average bottom slope decreases gulfward rather uniformly at a rate of about 1.3 feet per mile in a

. southwesterly direction to the area of the 20 fathom 31ne.

• Coast and Geodetic survey.

-~~~T_._. . _ _m cr _ _ - - - - -

in- - -- ^~~ m '~ m --

84 Two of the main assumptions made in computing onshore surge were:

1. There was zero flow perpendicular to the coast.

2. The response of the water to a surface level in-crease was instantaneous in time.

The assumption of zero flow perpendicular to the coast implies there is a vertical barrier at shore with the onshore surge piling up against t:iis barrier. The onshore surge at Crystal River will flow inland over the low lying backshore area, decreasing the surge elevation. The amount of surge reduction will depend on the available backwater storage area as related to the volume of water delivered from the sea during the PMH occurrence. The maximum storm surge elevation for the crystal River Nuclear Station (on the order of 30 feet MLW) should be reduced since there is no vertical shore barrier rising to ele-vation 30 feet. The 30-foot contour is approximately six nauti-cal miles inland from the Crystal River site ( f rom U . S . G . S .

• quadrangle sheets). As agreed upon with the U.S. Atomic Energy committion, a reduction of two feet to the peak surge elevation was considered justified.

6.4.4 Results Parameters of the design PMH are as follows:

1. A central pressure index of 26.70 inches of mercury

2. An asymptotic pressure of 31.25 inches of mercury

3. A radius of maximum wind of 24 nautical miles

4. A forward translational speed of 20 knots

• U.S. Geological Survey.

. . _ . _ _ _ _ _ _ . . . _ . _ . - ~_

85

5. A maximum wind speed of 149.8 miles per hour, and;

6. A PMH path of N630E (true).

The storm surge hydrograph of the design PMH is pre-sented in Figure 36. The maximum stillwater elevation at the Crystal River Nuclear Station is 29.4 feet MLW during the coinci-dental occurrence of the PMH maximum surge and the 4.3 foot high spring tide. The computer outputs of the PMH storm surge are presented in Appendix F. ,

6.5 WIND GENERATED WAVES 6.5.1 General Wave characteristics are dependent upon wind speed, wind duration, water depth, and fetch length. Generated waves were calculated coincidental with the maximum surge hyurograph to determine the maximum flood elevation.

l 6.5.2 Deepwater Waves The .'sthod of forecasting hurricane waves presented by 1

Bretschneider in Section 1.27 of CERC, Technical Report No.4, was used with parameters of the design PMH. In very deep water (cp-l proximately 800 feet and deeper in this analysis) this method re-sults in a significant wave height and period of 67 feet and 17.5 seconds, respectively, with a probable maximum wave height on the order of 100 feet. I t 1.1 apparent from the offshore profile I along the traverse line (Figure 34) that waves of this size would not exist in the nearshore area. Waves ~in the nearshore area are limited by the water depth as well as by frictional damping.

Due to the mild slope of the continental shelf, frictional

.. ,. .. 1

- - . ~ . - - - . - - - - . . - .- .

86 damping is an important factor in the wave transformation of these deepwater waves into shallow water. These deepwater waves, trans-

, mitted to the site, are reduced to a shallow water significant wave height and period of 5.2 feet and 5.0 seconds, respectively, with a maximum wave height of 9.6 feet. Since deepwater gener-ated waves will not produce controlling wave conditions at the site, shallow water wave-generation, independent of deepwater-wave con-ditions, was performed.

6.5.3 Shallow Water Waves As hurricanes move toward the coast, wind speeds and directions are dependent upon location and time. In order to prepara a wind distribution for the purpose of wave fore, sting, the wind vectors along the storm traverse were calculated using the storm surge computer output. Two fetch lengths, 9 nautical miles and 5 nautical miles, were examined for shallow water wave generation by using-Figure 1-32 of CERC, T.R. No. 4. Component wind profiles were plotted using time histories of average wind vectors over the two fetch lengths, Figure 37. Generated shallow water, significant wave heights and periods based on the fetch i

lengths, component wind profiles and average water depths were also plotted in Figure 37. These curves have a phase shift of 0.65 hour7.523148e-4 days <br />0.0181 hours <br />1.074735e-4 weeks <br />2.47325e-5 months <br /> and 0.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> for the 9 nautical mile and 5 nautical mile fetches to allow for the generation and travel of waves over the fetch lengths. The two significant wave conditions obtained for the two fetches are similar. The maximum significant wave height 1

, . - - - . _ - . ,gn.n .

87 and peric0 is 15.3 feet and 8.3 seconds, respectively. This sig-nificant wave does not, however, occur coincidental with the maxi-mum stillwater level at the sita location, Figure 38.

The normal available parameter from statistical analysis of synoptic weather charts is the significant wave height. Approx-imate relationships of the significant wave heights to other pa-rameters of the normal wave spectra have been defined. The maxi-mum wave height curve (considered the 1 percent wave in th1s anal-ysis) as shown in Figure 38 is based on the significant wave height curve. The maximum wave height is 25.5 feet, but will not occur at the site because of insufficient wacer depth.

6.5.4 Design Waves 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 PMH occurrence must be propagated shoreward to the plant structures. Since the maximum stillwater level and the maximum offshore generated wave height do not occur coincidentally, various stillwater levels must be considered in selecting the critical wave conditions.

i The critical path of approach to the site is from the south. Waves from this direction must cross over 600 feet of i

plant site fill embankment, at elevation +10 feet MLW, before they can cross over the intake canal and pump house and run up 4

on the protective embankment (berm) along the south side of the

,- .m., - _ . . . .

7,,, _ _ _ ,

88 t

l >'~ m t

l Plant, Figure 39. Therefore, the size of wave that can approach the plant site will depend on either the maximum supported wave height (without breaking) that can travel over the available water l depth of the flooded plant fill, or the maximum generated wave height during that time, whichever is smaller. A time history 1

of the maximum wave height without breaking (H b) that can reach the plant's protective embankment is shown in Fiure 38. Using this plate, the maximum design wave height, when using the maxi- -

mum wave for design, is 15.0 feet occurring at time 23.45 hours5.208333e-4 days <br />0.0125 hours <br />7.440476e-5 weeks <br />1.71225e-5 months <br /> during a stillwater level of +29.2 feet. When using the signifi-cant wave for design, the maximum design wave height is 13.9 feet occurring at time 23.9 hours1.041667e-4 days <br />0.0025 hours <br />1.488095e-5 weeks <br />3.4245e-6 months <br /> during a stillwater level of

+27.8 feet. During the maximum stillwater level of +29.4 feet, the design maximum and significant wave heights are only 11.0 feet and 6.5 feet, respectively.

l 6.6 WAVE RtJNUP Wave runup against the protective embankment for the Crystal River nuclear units was based on results of the Crystal River Unit 3 model runup studies performed by the Coastal and Oceanographic Engineering Department at the University of Florida (Reference 25).

During these model studies, various wave periods and heights were tested to determine the most critical wave conditions producing maximum runup on the protective embankment. It was o

% ..e . - , , s.,,.._. . . - , .g  % w, m. . p -- y-- -),,3.. 3 .-y, &

emqq g gpg , p ,.yyyy,%,

~_ ---- _ __ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ . . ._ _, . ..___.m._4 i

l 90 *

. s The base level of the power plant fill is 118.5 feet (Crystal River Plant Datum) with the nearest plant structure, j

exposed to wave attack, approximately 100 feet back from the top of berm, Figures 32 and 39. If Layout 3, Section B is used as the embankment profile with a berm elevation of 123.5 feet (35.5 feet MLW), then no wave overtopping will occur, and plant struc-tures will not be flooded. If Layout 3, Section B is used as the embankment profile with a berm elevation of 118.5 feet, then -

waves would runup and overtop the berm. It would be conservative to assume a maximum flood elevatiod of 119.5 feet (31.5 feet MLW) for plant structures located close to the berm, to allow for surg-ing water 1.0, foot above the berm elevation of 118.5 feet.

i Therefore, Class 1 structures adjacent to the south berm (using embankment profile - Layout 3, Section B) should be protected from flooding to elevation 119.5 feet (31.5 feet MLW) for a  !

1 berm' elevation of 118.5 feet. No flood protection would be re-l l

quired for an impervious berm with a minimum elevation of 123.5 1

feet (35.5' feet MLW).

6.7- MINIMUM STILLWATER LEVEL The treatment of extreme low tide or drawdown due to I i

hurricanes.is scarcely found in engineering literature, and '

therefore it is difficult to treat hurricane drawdown effects with sound theoretical background. In this analysis the basic hydrodynamic equations governing hurricane surge (or drawdown) were reviewed to assess the drawdown effect to a reasonable ex-tent. Two of the main assumptions made in computing onshore

surge were:

)

._ _ . . _ . _ - ~._- - -- - - ~- --~~

7 -, - i ~ ~ ~

89

^

l found that maximum runup occurred for wave periods of 5.4 seconds and wave heights of 10 to 15 feet. These wave conditions are in-cluded in the wave spectrum generated by the design PMH of-this analysis.

Wave runup was considered for embankment profile No.5, 1

labeled Layout 3, Section B with stepped slopes, as defined by )

Reference 25. Runup elevations were determined using Figure 5 I of Reference 25, which presents maximum and median runup eleva-tion curves for profile No. 5. In the wave runup model studies performed using profile No. 5, the embankment steps were continued above the base elevation of 118.5 feet (Crystal River Plant Datum) in order to prevent wave overtopping.

Maximum and median runup elevations for profile No.5 are presented in Figure 38. These runup curves presented in Fig-ure 38 assume wave heights in the 10 to 15 foot range. Since both maximum and significant wave heights are less than 10 feet before hour 23.2, the runup curves should be less in magnitude before hour 23.2 than the presented values in Figure 38. (dotted portion of runup curves). The design maximum and median runup elevations are 123.5 feet (35.5 feet MLW) and 122.5 feet (34.5 feet MLW), respectively, and occur during hour 23.25 (time of the maximum stillwater elevation).. Since these runup elevations are for no wave overtopping, the actual runup elevations would be lower if the base elevation of profile No. 5 is lower than the above runup elevations. This is due to the wave overtopping effects.

.- wsv+mm s www.. .

m .m > Umm + ..m=e- -e~r..~ew-g www ,-u  % ,<

q ,m a,-w '*se-

._:_.. _ . _ - ... _ _ _ _ _ -. - .- - - - - -- - ~ - - ' ~ -

91

1. There was zero flow perpendicular to the coast.

This implies that there is a vertical barrier at shore with the onshore surge piling up against this barrier.

2. The response of the water to a surface level in-crease was instantaneous in time.

In computing extreme drawdown effects for Crystal River, the design PMH producing maximum surge is assumed to travel .

in a southwesterly direction from land to sea with the eye of the hurricane passing south of the site by a sufficient dis-tance to allow the maximum winds to pass directly over the site.

For this case of offshore winds blowing across increasingly deeper water, it is not realistic to assume a vertical barrier.

Therefore, there is most definitely a change of flow with respect to time perpendicular to the coast. In considering this flow, to satisfy continuity, there must be a water surface change with re-spect to time. These two transient terms result in a transient surface elevation change. There are no established procedures available that consider these transient terms in open bodies of water.

Comparing the offshore surge to the onshore surge the following should be considered:

1. A minimum low astronomical tide of -1.0 feet MLW instead of a high tide of +4.3 feet MLW; 1

l l

l .__ . _ _ . . __ _ - - . - - - - - - - - ~ - - "~~- ~~

- - - . - - . . . - .- --.- . . - . - . . . . - . . _ . _ _ . . . i 92

2. The hurricane's atmospheric pressure reduction would increase the water level by the same order of magnitude in both cases;

3. The alongshore wind driven currents (flux) would increase the water level in both cases while the offshore wind drawdown would be of lower; magnitude than the onshore wind setup since wind velocities would be reduced due to land effects;

4. The transient terms of flow and water surface change would reduce the effects of drawdown, and;

5. The effect of breaking waves, swell, and rainfall at shore would increase water levels.

Considering these effects, it is conservative to assume a minimum stillwater level of -9 feet MLW (79 feet Crystal River Plant Datum) as discussed in the FSAR of Unit 3, AEC Docket 50-302.

6.8 CONCLUSION

S Based on the above discussions and analyses, the following is concluded:

1. The maximum stillwater elevation at the site is 117.4 feet CRPD (+29.4 feet MLW) during the coinci-dental occurrence of the PMH maximum surge and the 4.3 foot high spring tide.

2. The design maximum and significant wave heights of waves that can reach the plant'a protective embank-ment are 15.0 feet and 13.9 feet, respectively.

The design significant wave period is 8.0 seconds.

• CRPD 4' -e. w. .,.,e.....%w._

-.f.me..,,,e .em - . , - , ,, - , . , -m.,w,.~ + m m my ,,. -

- . - . - . . . , . - . . ~ . - - - . -- . . - - - . - -- -:>-

~

93

3. The flood elevation for Class 1 structures adjacent to the plant's south berm (embankment profile Lay-out 3, Section B) is 119.5 feet CRPD (+31.5 feet MLW).for a berm elevation of 118.5 feet CRPD, while no flood protection is required for an im-pervious berm with a minimum elevation of 123.5 feet CRPD.

4. A minimum stillwater elevation of 79.0 feet CRPD .

(-9.0 feet MLW) is considered conservative.

DAMES & MOORE

@c Irwin Spic ler Associate k

Ronal M. Noble l Project Manager James A. Hendri kson Technical Supervisor July 13, 1973 Los Angeles, California l

l l vm -ws-w.m,_ -

%. -, .e ,mem,- ...w.- ,,

r_ w......, ., ..%... - - , ,

..,y,ms,,p,

ao .

E is -

N 3

16- -

h la 14- -

p 12- -

a w

E i

o T P 10 -

e w 5

. Ee -

e

. a

- ANALYTIC SOLUTION

,3 _ O D8M PROGRAM e O CERC PROGRAM E

3 4- ~

E e

.I . -

=

L- . ANALYTIC TEST CASE I m

2

' =-

5 d i

.2 I

.4 I

.6 .

I

.8 I

1.0 maamme a meses==

g DIMENSIONLESS FRACTION OF REACH. X/L

. , . . . . ~ . . . _ . -. . , _ . .

_m.

.. , .F IGURE. . 2 ._.__

, _ m

/

48 -

• X8m W '

a l

$ 40 -

a .

5 W$ FLUX 4

32 -

m iY

• R m;e .

m b A SURGE l o E24 -

x;z ia x m l 1

x4 W P <

3@! s l b

i

'S s i -

X CERC PROGRAM FLUX e e CERC PROGRAM SURGE l w ANALYTIC SOLUTION a

C 8 - 1 O DS M PROGRAM m

er i 4

, O ' ' ' ' '

l 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 W

3 DIMENSIONLESS FRACTION OF REACH, X/L 8

ANALYTIC TEST CASE 2 l q:o i g i STEADY . STATE SOLUTION l tI 6

lu - . . .

~ _ _________p.= w

. _ _ _ _.- __ m.. . . . .__

\

U. -

a e X X 3 x x

a X e 2.0 -

. X X  ; O l.6 i

I X

\.

9, f l.2 ta, -

x

$ s g d .8 -

ANALYTIC SOLUTION w e DSM PROGRAM d X CERC PROGRAM AT X=.05 g .4 -

E h

0 ' '

3 0 1.0 2.0

$ TIME, HOURS c o a ANALYTIC TEST CASE 2

& a '

aE TRANSIENT FLUX AT e.

i DEEPWATER STATION, X=O

, 3 i

' "_ l 3

FIGURE 5i.__

J

f i

t y...  ! N .:- r

- /g , . g n

, wR J

/

t_. t,N K-f ,< 1 1

~ '~

A ,1 A  %.\

in

, je .o,e

• u

-y

/.'"C/ y 4

- m::. gf . ,4 lt .

s - ._ ._

3g b .+

e H

- . .+, ,. ,,,

s

~

m x h- _... N .n'(.k

( _..... e yv'- - '

O.. 4

'yc"'

_3, r _

/'

s <

~ .J.yY* - ,.

. ^.

~

.~ces.. nsf.j\, T ,

i ss on' m.

%,c I ,l -

K p.,

%. .-n N . .I

> \ .

", y_

'K ,N 9= .h[

x a Mic@,n. ;.. '

I 7,,'+

1 a '

<,5

. q ,,

, . . ~

-("

ga . f '- X ,1p.

k ;7 h?,

, /, W/ ,/. I7t*+-

7, is n,

- .' ' ,~*/ !'1 l l 7 -s .,-_ .' ~.

.~. .

. N. '. . . %' .: .. _ t. ..

w!.: 'i;5

~

- ?., ,  %' . %7*);:O,,V ,Mg- )* ,

x >c / . N. -/-, . ~ ./..c.x, . gw<. w;-

I, s 2 u,. . ..

.2 Ud. , k ' '

./

c,W.i e m .N,. sy ,s

g. .e_. M. M.I .

,e~ D,.M;. /

"m' , "A .

@a.m)x,.

.'N, '

. :s p.-

, *, . q. 'g, i ,. ' ,3e _ .~  ;, d s . u ,. ,- }n y/. /c ,

~,"N.2 . % ) ( .'\ . q., ; y l yN'bl..;,%, : ' .,i y'; ,J

%,/s '. ,k5 %f;AN M. ~ ^,p,' l' / w% D.!

-. ... . i  ;

~ '

l .

.. x/N -Q,%.o r ,' i % Q / -8 dj[

g': L. -:y' .'.g. %' -=.g

)u;

.:;.Q=% 'q

l. N. sc.

. e. . a w e N e /, ,, ,s ?W ..' .9qT;y" /

e / .

7'/Hf'

~ , 3,_. ,, . ,/

l, t

.;." z%._(.f.b .6-. - c g%

.  := -

/ . ./ >. -

. ~1 % Q _- #' .

b.mh) V

y. . .

.x ... ; .

. e,  ;.3 7 ,, N

-K H N, K- g' j- K i, ..: ,.

,. :M,, /, 5 ,a:,f .N,

/ ~

v .m s sh '

. 'Xj.

yg..:- g_.pq6s N".

lC l . 2./

m X' j'

,(.,

w" h.,C'm,_

,,, N *

x. (

4'N

_ s. N as_ =

s

'*s%" _.=._ D.

I o ..},,, -

.f

'i 'Ap =

M,*"

g ( x .m v= c- __ , ... e ' p,,,,,,,. s ~3 ,, ,A.pN.c=_,, s .;.;qs.yg4-p (J

f.

u'_,.

-,,,....s..,

.= w y_ / r ,, _ s_r .y gy j ,y

. _ . . . . ~ . . . . _ _ _ _ .__ ____. _ _ _ . _ _ _ _ _ . _ _ _ . _

l s  !

y v g . A -~ - J g ty 1 Q .

2 m t ,6cu '-

i-  : a ..A w n.. %. r- .g r.n. - , %.. .

-e..

yy. ,,. .. ,y.y v. A ; m.;,c .n .

&; . < r. .. L.

a. ' c=,c:-=:3_.:

. o ,7

. t

- - _ _ . . v. s ' p,' .

s .. ,

s f

\, \.","_[ [ , f._,

1 Y~~Je

&.'$fy' J. f-h',~' - '.g.z[ ._ '. f.. l y3 M .2.i F s . . .

!x . 'pfp. - y&;,&;1,,* m <, .

a

s

Q,.-. k [k y,y p-<.L ..

4 ' _. .

' J. '.',rs

f. f r%.h

/ 4

. . y,. -

. a <. .-i. p 3 #w. -;,,,%<s.-w/y

-- m. .-,.

,L.

.V .s

w. .... -

v. , u. - x

.- 3

c. I . c .;

, ..ew,. - c.s .. .

. e / ,~.,,. .~-

't' - ... . .

.. .. ~

'3-.. . ., a r .

h M;;*** . ' '

. ~.

g . A. /

.; . D 5~'~~+( ,. -T ' *- .1 l

l l-

.if,- .-

i -

lWkW.'~~~

./ -

~ / f. .... T g(_.g.c ;;"9, . .,s -mW

• w  ::. ,. v y - > - .

/ - .-

r , l' / /_ !

. . ./- . -- - - y ; . .-m" .-

ir y

' y~=,. -

7.ir .':. -

fr/ly . ./. s . . .

- ~, #.

5,-- y- -

l

I. 'IL.:%~ - .

7 ~~~', "

-r M \

L M ' s-

/.fi.,/ ~;Q:-~. #.7"-  ;

yf.I,f y / /~ ,. -

~, .

L

.~.. ..

y-1

~ j ,y;y7.//, ,7 o - * -

' , g g \ ,- - t _A - .- - . . - . - -

)

- ii ' " t .V. .

-^8 . . -

.E-~

~%..... =?.

i ~ -~~ 1

..c.;x;k ~ m -r-Q/iil4..r I

/. 1J./iA.. 1 -  :. x "- 9=.-. <=.

'w 1

i

+..

-,w: P. s_

_ _~...-

• r

.-~. _.

_x s%N."3 VN'w'.~ x_ r t

x s

'.4._

x ..

t c Y .~'1 _.__,

N  ;.

I

. \

Ju / / .f M Gs 3 Q .. - [- ~~~

-?Q. -' ..'.\. '\,. ~

=..~. .s~~ j

! igr4rj ,j. / aC ,I,N. M Kp l-NYNK

--'-'----~_.

1 1, y~e ,8 ,

,, . 4 y pr

% x.% -x Q+ .~x.y'

\

,, -q '. i.

i, - -

s _ . - . -

7 f;

n. -

.s.

4g... -

~. .

gi w s_

-rJ .' .N. ~.-_ ,2. ,-

- --- 1 ji 8  %. . 'O;# x 5 % '

. .m.i ...  ;

a v i...,/- W__5

.. g , ~ %' .t 2 --~'. 1s .

o. - - - - to t.o s.o 40

$l ' ' Js% N _ #'m s.h i ~

S -/ / ;t/6 - %. . '~, -%g~ . . pC, im:WC yJ ORIENTATION OF GALVESTON,

.. _ i. .-n -

, L '" . -

SABINE PASS AND FREEPORT

,7%jj=,w'!)-. .d,

--A. -

TRAVERSES

' / ;=-l D' [%

2. . -cJ 7'

n Q.Q.A(W@'

=

w%

4' '3';g.4 N sousoises i , m ou s -

% = . ,;rs, _ v; ~;. -

. y.

M_,w,4y[==- xJ _. ~ ~ .

' s .

'RE,ERENCE: C 8GS CHARTS fil6 8 l'17 e

2 P. f'\ /MIJr'b=+= ,,,<' M m-u, ,

x .

.~ - - - - - - 1

1 s

,(

DISTANCE FROM SHORE O Ip 20 30 40 5 5 g 5 5 IF I

I!.i t

4

? 6 h I I b

D.

di l l

OFFSHORE DE GALVESTON 1

i NOTE: SEE FlGURE 8 FOR NEARSHORE ENLARGEMENT a

N i }(

J

i

.(NAUT l CAL HILES) 5,0 6,0 70 80 9,0 10,0

[ -

'MyNE

-- 100 E

--200 j B

si m

--300 y n'

x t

--400 $

--500 PTH PROFILE TRAVERSE -600 r

_ me... . ..

(_ [. -____.l_

- N "

i i

(' .

)

> D i STANCE FROM SHORE' 0 5 10 15 20 25

:  :  : l l

,L ,

)

, I l i ,

Iist j

)

)

)

i t.

t 4- *,i l-  !

I e ft

' ill l I l NEARSHORE DEPi

(

GALVESTON T l

5  !

i L

)

di- ,

_.a

. , 1 wTicAt. Mit.es) 30 35 40 45 50 {

-M

-J ._ o 'j[ER

-- 20 m

40 I3 Z

o J

w CD

-- 60 g w

+--. w t.L

-- 80 Oi

--i00 l

-120 l

L H PROFILE

-AVERSE l

f

--.. . g.

FIGURE 8 L. _-___ . ._ _ .. .

944.7 (::EY. 6 41) gyFLA care c 4a-u nevisons CHECKED gy FILE %aOD- M -27 sy DaTE l SEPT 9 l SEPT 10 l SEPT II l SEPT 12 l 2.e-3a4 I . 0-2 i

M'"

p ~

N./ v M L LW F- -------- - - -

1 PREDICTED TIDES PLEASURE PIER G ALVESTON , TEXAS (19 61) 1-TIDE FROM REFERENCE 7 0.0 SLD = 0.37 MLW (SEMI-DluRNAL T IDE) 2-TIDE FROM REFERENCE 8 0.0 SLD = 0.37 MLW (SEMI-DIURNAL T lDE) 2 l, 3-TIDE FROM REFERENCE 9 MLW~ { SEMI-D IURNAL T IDE) l 0 4-TIDE FROM REFERENCE II 0.0 MLW = 0,62 MLW (SEMI-D IURNAL TIDE) s c

,I

E a

. SLD -

5 L g 0.37' MLW v JL O.62' MLLW 1r TIDE DATUMS BASED ON CHIEFLY SEMI . DIURNAL TIDE

-4 W

l

=

SLD JL iO O.99' 1

• g MLW 1r a

C

• TIDE DATUMS BASED ON CHIEFLY DIURNAL TIDE t 5 l t! TIDE DATUMS 7 PLEASURE PIER GALVESTON, TEXAS

='

3 d

u . - - . . . - . l FIGURE 10

• • *h4 _

,[ .'\ \ ', /

[

, 'v '

+ mzrsh . / ..'

\\ 0, 2-p,#

,.','s,

+/ ,, # ;5' ' ,f

, ' 8' s/ .- , - ,

\\ iSABlNF ' /id

%% .  % < ,- O'.* 'i 7

,,s** h

• U <lh , e *s

2 Sft f Tas re* ~

/

1. yy'3 9

, R., ay? /e, y,,, a '

11 N Of.Y. 2 II 8 \k i7 W g / " .M4

' \ s, \ / Mests 13 k

O q, g3 i

• "~-

• g .

k F1 R 10ft g 16 l

i ' ',fN 6 %5 i

,o to 'O "G2 to ** .* /. n s,, . ,.10,i6 f

' ~uest M l 34 17 I marsh 66 Tirns PT J'* 6/ G

~~ u 19 TRbERSE,y T l'p, ' m g * ,, i3 I

kg h -:sSMd0 .onoJ@,; [.l Uhy,';r 15 2o '

2 3s "*" ,

5 4 4 g 3 2 g'4fr -

g; j]4 ,g 6 5

• M g

6 4 ~, 4 3 ,g,,,,

j -O}'2/ 'P M4 3 7 \ ', yg i

22 7

Durnpaa om$(onos ont n<

, s (s"Q s s 57N sWas' 2 7 205 80I '* UI0 4 \ 'O e 22

e 9 E M' ar#$1&'** **s54"g #

e e 22 1

i 9

suYLL a7 ss

% "

• CL M " 8 4 080G "GE' 's Y"[a ' . ' '2' "' \

9

\ DEPTH FT j ,,,

jy g 22 y 25 9 '. kLpa '

9  ?* \ -

10 i e q

c 'g[7, s

FI 6:ec 67ft 10M 23

\ 60

• g MOPN 4 @0 0MM ,

3I 10 t lI , # ' \ / \ .

10  !

17 g' \

it '"

.i?)'-PA II 'k 14 '- #~208" 2' 12 y', e nR4eec n etti PO g 12 3 13 15 \ i5

\ \ "i94 Y ' Ov'"**f *g 84 \

nG u 205 80(see no B) \ a a

o-13 Otas '8 26 13 g

l' 16 g/

' conos mo"ts Q F Ltp ,

g n,4 ,,, g,(g g\8 7 2

,yy,, ,g,jyfpa g 14

1. MSh p Aer 1) q /964 28 \

I4 - 3 32 w

.J 15 is i e ,g, 20 3 \g 26 6 30 Q0 \

3:'

in annoo nets $

E.

,)', u g7 Q pk FI Lt g \\

\\

\

5 87 is 's 0,[ , O f "27" '

d,t j 2, _ _ _32 II 17 is 19

\ Jc5 aot, 9 25 j y 33', g 3 _ _ __ _ _

3

,, 19 IS N22 Dyas,/

\

,; 'f' yn-r6aos not \ fo,"#[g) ctg 20 \

,,,,f,, .j Qk Fi Lt,,, , s 35 22

' \

\

• K' * "0"" I " *" **! "'C* 8 0 's 's 35

'N%s

• 23 24 23 JS"I' Q \

\

p' ' ' 2e 30 si s s N

's

\

2+

,2r# }f7 p 'I2 ;3 s

27 27

,-18

/

Nhl36 36

, /*

,,%w <.a '

't E

v'

' ai '

{ 32 33 35 37 8 / 's ' 38 u m =

37 37

,/

\ 38  %

&! LOCATION OF SABINE PASS GAGE

( RELATIVE TO SABINE PASS TRAVERSE

'3 Mere. tor Projection d

t<

se.l.1:ao.ooo.t r t. 2s sr lS OUN D I NGS IN FEET AT MLW Z

REFERENCE:

C&GS Chart 1279 """""******"*

FIGURE 11 _

i e

l

)

(

DISTANCE FROM SHORE ()

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 i  :  :  :  :  :

• !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:I!!!!

i 11 I , o,

(

t 4 I 4 it I. l 3 b ,

l t 4 l l t il l '

l \

i t l OFFSHORE DE l SABINE PASS

'(

4 NOTE: SEE FIGURE 13 FOR 5 NEAi. SHORE DEPTH ENLARGEMENT i

.g . _ ._

1 1

e 1

k AUTICAL MtLES) 70 80 9,0 100 110 120

" "!Na*

-- 100 n

- 200 3 1

O rd m

-- 300 g

$u.

v Z

H

-- 400 i O

-- 500

-- 600 TH PROFILE TRAVERSE f

_.... m .

E ,, _ _ _ _

FIGURE 12

\

(

r DISTANCE FROX 0 5 16 15 20 25 30 l l l l l l l

.)!

i i e i ris2

(.

?

~ i II i

=

4 E s

lil i

NEARSHORE a SABINE F i

$a

,g _ _ .

I -

1 s

SHORE (NAUTICAL MILES) 35 40 45 50 '55 60 65 70 l l  ! l l l l  :

MEAN LOW WATER y 0

--20 n

--40 x

5

__i

-60 g w

if

=

--80 L

-- 100

--120

DEPTH PROFILE

' ASS TRAVERSE i

EDARSES S msnm

~ '

Elt:lliaE II

! 944.7 (cev. 4 4i)

! -sy FI A OATE 6-7A-73 NEvtW0005 CHECKEO SY FILE M-W BY OATE l SEPT 9 l SEPT 10 l SEPT ll l SEPT 12 l

2. 0-3 l 1. 0-I

'. MLW '

/,

v v v v M L LWl----------- ---- - - - - - = - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

- l . 0-PREDICTED TIDES U. S. CO AST GUARD STATIO N SABINE PASS, TEXAS (1961) i l-TIDE FROM REFERENCE 7: 0.0 SLD = 0.16 MLW (SEMI-DIURNAL l T IDE) y g 2-TIDE FROM REFERENCE 8: 0.0 SL D = 0. I6 MLW (SEMI-DIURNAL TIDE) g a 3-TIDE FROM REFERENCE 9: MLW { SEMI-DIURNAL TIDE)

E O b -* l

.> y

t W

,, SLD 5 a n

g*, 0.16' MLW1r O.60' -

MLLW 1r TIDE DATUMS BASED ON CHIEFLY SEMI-DIURNAL TIDE l

v 8

s S

e E i SLD \

h O.76' 4

l MLW 1r a

TIDE DATUMS BASED ON CHIEFLY DlURNAL TIDE c

E 5 tE TIDE DATUMS

( SABINE PASS, TEXAS 2

N 4

_ _ _ _ . _ _ . _ FIGURE 15

(

wna s. wm ._=_ '..,

. - - M cw ~

2.

4 F- r *" g -.=

( , N  ; .,

I m s 1 .=- - - . _. ~ ~

I i? .

' m' .

I

'1L , _ . , , . ,

a * = " ' -

• s 1- s == *~

u L j

.~rON .

. , , . , - , , = . -- ~

Z--_- ::. ::\

- ~ ~ ~ '

- ._ _ _-- p' M .;;; -

. d g "--* b

• N F WI 4J r- J .,.,,,- nee-g**~ gy .a -

i 5

~

't \

l

= .

I i

- ~ _. ,

) I

.== I _

L'

1. 1 f m --

-. .N manom . ---- k::

..e ~~~j

%- S/ T

• l

'.'~ \. , / N

'li' m

L., &e .

r' irii, W ~~

P Q I

,,g [j *,j#.' *),*T

' ,.'*' ' Q ' i * 's ) . c[ 5 '

,r..:,.4. .re.= w

...w 4...:.

r

, . . . . . x.:.

,, 9<

, .g. . A,

~ -

- <;.'..j,, y .:~. -~ s L- '

' a. .

.i'.' f 9. * .. ,' ...., , ~, ,. ., .,

M,., w;'. , .> , ,~ '

- . _ - -. ,Q

.' " ~

N

- - .S - ,-

....;.,. . .- ,", - . . " c. . .

%.,.. 7....

(

.j . . .

.w . . . . . . . '- . .

=e~

4'

, r, '.-

g . .yr

~.',"g. . L x. ' ,: jo?.

3 c ju .. .- , :- :

~

' . . .. . ~ ' . ,**...- . .  ;-l-g ..

.., q y[c.,a.>

. . .fm._

w:: -

+ .x..l . . .: .- ..- .

. m. . ., - .. .g .

.,.e. . . _

. m, .

,,y_ #.n m., a of.

5 fo

. p.p -w .

1

.m.fs. :m,. .mrr"-m- ,.u. -y: .  : .r. - =

. n<

tn i

,,n.gf .

_ _ r.g .

.-+ : - m. . . ..e .- ..

. .~..

y.w,. .. .

w -

.r.....

x

.s . . ,. e.t .P-a.u

w. #.;

e..r. 6; ,,W..

w,.

,.s ,., - +ty3 . . .v. /.= - : . .1.: .A..

m- e -

+ ,.

W ...

x s kg.y+ .-1

4ni =... .

~ ~

.:...w m..wm. 7.; .v. n . . ,

~

8

. k. ~ .

t

,g -.

- e.l. . .

_ . .2 _.,

,.a. w. ,~

w=q . ..,s

.. . h. . " .1 ,. w= e-

., m_.

_. _ s .m g .~

_._ _.,.n .

s.

s.

. y .+ .

. . . o..,.,.

• ,. A. *,. _*..._ i,. *7*M. .

m _ _=...- ;;~ F. .

g . .

. . q . . .=:. . .' E- t. .. .tJ,

. , _ ..._. m~ m. ._m..

.3 %. ""*,.-.- b *'~ +w **

^=*y""'"-=

4' .

f.d- l . .[---.',"-b

" ,4 e- .= -

, ...,.-g. , , _

, j ,, ,. ,

i ,

ar p. g._m -

. . ""l"M,.;;:-l, , .t. .,...~.,==-. p -- - m M . =

_ g ,,' W .T'....I.

v --]--- , ,]'h

, . i~~~,*--- ==

.-_ .*~~ , , . . . -.

a.(

._ 9_. . . - . . . ..-

.-,- Es- -- i

,-- .r ,&=J Q . "h.;:;t'

~

.O t

. - . --\. ,

,.r y .. . , --

..e.

7, g 88

. . . ~ .= ,

.j

. .. -T . . %. . =

..~ , ,,..

',, * }, . . "" " " ' '.' 7*2 j + ; ".@K= .a

( - -

. _ - ( . . . ".

..._..,.~.A.1g.y/, ,  :.;

.. . 4 4- -

.y .

. C... . _

,' . - .. -+- ~.

.. , x -_ . . ?_-j -

h ,h -

c7_f,* C'g f- fT .

. :- c &f-;w,,,? ~ ~ 2 w;;, .aw : d' A.

~

- =-- .-1

,t . .

'I

1

. . - . _ _ _ . em .9 j,

.-s _- _._ _ i "r -

.7 4 -

=. .

r un nxrc a ra .sx C ,N. '.

_- ~g .hL. . ' ,:..' ,

g

.e ~~-

\

u ,.f .

. p t

- 1, .rws-.- _. . e-m\ z

~

,*fp ,

[.7. N [**' - - -

, *7 r

~ ,,c'/], s. .,.

.a,  ;". - .Y.. Y. -.,%:

.g- ,

g x ,e - -

w.f.e.. '_.

.. . c.

. ...t..

m 3 .,3 .

. --. , g,3 rr.. . . . . .

r .e, s ./ .

/s' . '. .

+

~

4, .,/

..g. .. .. ,

w

-- ~ ,. *

. w / :.- .. --

a, ./

m. d. ' ...-

is/s.

y s . ,i ~- ca

,- , ,~:r. 41

/ , ..

F 3; < '

/ 4.5I L h+e-.,..* . ., w . <. S!/ ."...?'

w. , .,s. , c=

v.

. c+- .

' ~; J. .- . .

, - g.- p .* ---

.N L.: 1 , ~.- }X1 s m- .

r.

1

_ L. . - ,

an '. n ,.

/ m . ../,

.,v. .

. c .-

m .

. . ',a W

~~ d . W ";, . , ./ . .

r. .s ' ..:=:*r.N

.'.'. (.e&. .l;-) P. 3x...,s_ .u._4.r .%.x

.. {. . w g .

/. -, "

s ,

e,s .. u..se .  :

. t-

, . . w. : ..

_n .a

, ., i . .

v

, . .q.p

(

w.s. m ... c ..

. ~m ,

. - .., e.._ ., .

g .Y " '

N'*'  ? -'yy 9

+k. p i:?. C ,. ; ,i v .s-x.'

. i

$.$. . -. H . . " 7 .?.v, . aO l "h_. ".,c; 21.Y . .Q3.W.L

}  : . .n. . .  : ,

./ .: ~.v .4 g, : _ a.. . .y r. . ,.. ,.,. , . , . .,. .v..

s. .V g . .

., ... , ; j .1:. g. .. .

.f. .,.

1 y .) s. /.' _.,..

v (-

- . y . 3. . .. . qJ, p,.y ..,.__. ,g .. . .

% f*~~

~

.  :,X} .

• . ..( *.". .

' f..

.QWM , -' W =

2 . ~ ~. ;, '5. :;, ' . "' ." $"A ..%:d

. *\q**C T *, . . '- , ,= . '

Y$ ll.l'fl&~ ' "2 : ' *~

9==  ; - ' ",/ (

{M.

(

p a? a .[

,{g

.s v

,/M.

'.w.

y-

. - - 4. s.'

. a y @N,"G^f-

.,f,/.

,." l .*

. .~ ,

i

-- b~ ~ h. '

x .-

_ __/ e.;-

s '

. -/

s ~ ,e

- <-_.:.fx .

- . . f

,, ' /

^- ,

C[.r /

, , 3'. ,L.

^ - ay .-

F k *R.--,.s .W-

- ~*

r,

~ '

D ," - .

.a=p:. .. . . ., .- ~jf.

.~

y. c

.r.  ! ,

/- . ~ . , 'T

z. .s .

@ f,. ..

~

W--. n' .

-s /2..P~..- .e ..1l \\>

',b7. m r .}.,. . &. -=-:-- .'-Q -

h u-

. f... -.*~.g sauununmuu a ,

R , * . l_* """*h (,' 7 - e 20 30 g_ t_

0. . . ._10 40 rs .,, - . s . j.s- .( y, . r _.u. 1' %"y-m- .

_ . . 1__ _ __.

Mi~. A ; ORIENTATION OF EUGENE ISLAND

[k. \,v6..~.:M, g .. Tg. y; . - __ - \.

. -O h./ . ./.

.". g/2,i )'.- .- -40  : , /.

.. ~

AND BILOXI TRAVERSES k_. . .1.,. i. . 4 -

. ._ - '- /-f., .=['2-Z_"C,s-

) L ,s ._ ~__

u-e . l,'

i. ,

.,/ . -/ - - -

r rm & -t, a / ,,,

' :} --

(*-).m \'

+ * - h,6 * /= ..

/ .),,, g.j. ;# b ,,

w;;_ ~--

SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS AT MLW

=M-~~~~--

5- ,,

f.i .. :' .m J __._;L /- _/l w% - -)J.-f l

g,4 g _~n : - *

.r ' -../

{= M_'

• ~

.'* 4 - _

'. /t __ _- p . -

/ g';9. , _;m )I . _,

M.

~_,,% *.*/-

---m___._, ""

REFERENCES:

C8 GS CHARTS 1816 8 1115 l4-

- -) _ _ ,~_C '"

Cx / W T-[ == = = = = =**a[=

t -

I i

DISTANCE FROM SHORI O 10 20 30 40 @

;  :  : l I'

sal ,

I l

l E

'h 6

$ II t

b9  %.

'1 OFFSHORE D EUGENEISLA I

E

\ NOT E : SEE FIGURE 18 FOR NEARSHORE ENLARGEMENT f

3 1 l

r__._ __

7 p 60 70 80 90 100

l l  :

0 MEAN LOW WATER

-- 100

-- 200 $

1 B

UJ CD

- 300 ,_

Lu LU LL v

1

-- 400 $

l 4

-- 500

-- 600 l

PTH PROFILE kDTRAVERSE ,

r l ,

I s

(

DISTANCE FROM SHOF 0 5 10 15 20 25

..c - -c 2::$ t -

A_bq

~

]

'4 h

_,.., s.

%,. . n ._

+ - _

._- m

!ji l i

- --r ._~'%=,@

4 l- .

j_:'

t 3 2 hub

(

s .

s ri 3 1

.g s

c

't d Idl l

l NEARSHORE EUGENE ISL

.2

.2 \-

1. / I

.I v-E (HAUTICAL MIGS)

$0 35 40 45 50 55 60 i f I e e a e

'I 5 5 5 a s e 0

MEAN LOW WATER 20 O

~:bb:q(

";i]E .85b's -- 40

---

% 3

~. _,

%L W m,-6 W

b %,

Ib W hs i

-- 60 W l

.,-----ar u.  ;

";;:t, " e,Ny

--- v

's tF------g _.N,'%

i

• Z

^~

-h o.

g% W

'91---- c

IN,%s

-- 80

--h

-5,

<----- _lg

's i

1:::::55 --100 l

<;::::: h

~55555:'$$

,-- .h.4

5 35355k

-~~~

--120 DEPTH PROFILE AND TRAVERSE 1

1 l

l FIGURE 18

~ * *

j

" g .

Il

• 2[,/ I0 i . o Il , - Bryan ,/ / f ,'

,^*

i l d -

; Mo==d ,, ,/

s * , c.

/8 /20 mi

\ !e 1 . .' ,  : ...~

7- ,

', '

• 8

/ marsh ' 5, 16 t .

' 20 /

/, 9

; 4 ..- ....... p,. .~. , + s/ ../ e ,,,.- 26(N

..- y* p, p n - 22 u ~

l l .-

RA RIV M..

3

./  !

3,i i / ,j'~), -"

GAG

* "/-

2'

"/,

g ,, ; '. m.,

(s.22 ,u /3 9

g,,,j ,4 ,, ,,

g '

,E -

e s.:5,,

t. .: ., ..

.; . \ ,5 or n,

, I,aAg ,e' m a rs h /', ' e '"4 15 dM II

• .~-..

,;;::. -  : 'S } 26 VERSE COA, ST,,/ ,,'oe

, . - / . -! 32 -

5 .

n/

a

( ,.-

1 STATION i9 y / . .~ s p k ,,

y #

t5 ,.-

Q.M, .

s or Ir 22, *;,n ,

• ' yW

'/

8 t

.),Q.l p

/ 3

'3./, *-

,c %'7

, ,7

/

,8

~y,c.u.u,

/,9 Ir j

- - 22 9

1. 4

,,, /

3

/ [g,

'8 'O 30 / #

3... ' 11 18 1 37 17' / ' 27

'7,,,,8,,,,,,,,_,,,,,,is '8 8

,,,,7,

,',',,' 8 !,8 ig (,/ 20

,9 19 ey %-

,9 j f 21/

21 22 25 30,,. '

/ 35 37 g p 20 a

20 18 20 n, v. ,, i 19 20 20 21 # 23 36 38

• /  % 27 *8\

ws i El 22 20 22  ? y 35 23/ s '2 27 ...-

'l 21 21 II) 28 -"

22

,,, 23 23 2.5 " 25 e WO 38 43 24 24 /

j 24 25 g== k, 34 .

/

' " 48 25 / 25 27 2,,7_, ,, ~ 37 44

/ 27 .- . . . 4, t 26 / <* 36 t 25 28

/ 8 28 29

" ' ~ ",3 3 3'

1. 33 gg ,, *'

• ,.. W 18 feet recorted 45

,/ 3 0 ,,,.. -- ~3', 31 33 39 g.yp x 39

.-.',,..*3. '" 2 9 _ _ ./, 3, 32 ,O'gc l y ) ' ..

' - 32 35 Pa A*! 4e 52

.J 32 32 35 50 a 56 5 33 35 36 40 a mo'ng" 8"

N*

43 33 34 36 55 58 36 40 36 37 4' 39 48 56 C/M 3g 43 55 42 30 44 OW g sg 4,1, 39 4' 42 47 Si  !

4 59 f 61 '

48 f ,

,i O $4 43 ' 47 38 59 OI A1 ,. /

k

~

LOCATION OF BRAZOS RIVER GAGE g RELATIVE TO FREEPORT TRAVERSE M

U Nautical Eles n! . , . . .

3 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MLW w

(t Z

REFERENCE:

C&GS Chart 1283 " * * * * * * * " "

' FIGURE 19'

944.7 (ZEY. 4-41) gy #rd DATE #7'73 REVISIONS CHECKED gy FILE P'M - **f gY DATE 0

DISTANCE (NAUTICAL MILES) 1,0 2,0 3,0 4,0 5,0 6,0 7,0 80 9,0

, MEAN LOW WATER h

-100 n

--200 3 I

B si m

300 r til 5

5 400 Oi 1

O 5 I OFFSHORE DEPTH PROFILE -

'500 E

m u FREEPORT TRAVERSE 5 NOTE: SEE FIGURE 2i FOR i

NEARSHORE ENLARGEMENT ll _.

-- 600

947 CEY. M1) m gy A.s DATE '/#'/'>

ftEVIS1000S CHECKE3 By FILE f40 4 - **

• gy DATE DISTANCE (NAUTICAL MILES)

Q .

Q IQ 15 2,0 2,5 3,0 QS 40 MEAN LOW WATER

- 20 I

-- 40 y a

I I '

si

- 60 '

IIi lf v

z

-- 80 $ m o

.i I 1%

'5 --100

,a l b ~

o NEARSHORE DEPTH PROFILE FREEPORT TR-AVERSE g

l a

-12 0

4

{

=

r PROVIDENCE

' # 4,,

y

( * . .

~ s-

,L o

9 C w a t ,,, _ " tiny.se -

y m m a aserr ,

i

- I O . CR R.#8

(' '

~

U g--[( g

, R H O D Ej;a,-

i5 i Istmo"'* .. 5 a waoss . WU

. /s

-~

ha TARRAGANSETT. a ,e P_JER R h M2-..& f g",['*{

os cerc '

- g, /

Occ uu b44D Ch , ,

• te onn MS OtMN Cmnet  % kot w k G Ay,4 noe. $

w{_ "' J.,.s

, ,,n.s--.-g,-

3 x '~p a"> "".."'g

• y$ p isr.gph; . ?g;h q

....--s

-i s

, *'4f3

~a. .~ ,

, r.

a# i "N is

,a-JLeis ere! 34.tlF#"' .c3,,0 12 N0*n li is u

1. J 'i 22 i M,M p ***1:3, .22 -N.<

amys ,) h */ IS s , chs MG8GL \ \

b\Y a~

,.. ,& * /3 UlGCM*LOOCO 3 Y C .' N

• 3

1. V BLOCK 5+ soc #o ISE.AND.

ry i \

1. 3 ,A, ,

\a c-e===e ie'a g".n;;s;M, vki2' , i 'e) is ,

i

- ""* ca is a

• * = 23

/we q ug at.ocnJ ' [ ran s f' ts 4, 17 *w/S ,,

?)

le

,- 29.

x 6M PN 8, (ne'~wc 210) es / ' % *,,)

' , y{ '-

-  != N- a' [, \,2 'I 85 ,,.

~~~

s 0" I s

g IN 8

}i , p,g Y 'O' Car

• r'S G g g o' 26

.e%' ,

D 2 e

- , wps v <** * ~7-).$ 2 ,, u s6 ,, .

. ,, SUBM SUB QPERADNG ARCA 21 g, h p' e'

27i

.' /, 23 (see acre E) S 23

~\. ,

21

% 2*

7===

27 21 I** ,pA iS \ a- 3: 29 SUBM SUBMARINC CPEF j l29 , .

O **/ YY'868 I'

. u...

/

22 2.

i t 3i u j, s y\ ,,

t.a;,

- 3, c-e 2.

2' I' 1965 33

@9'~'~~],/h 2. '

22 23 ,8 / \

32 31 3i l 3i DuursvG A#EA 2 29 31 3' 32 - Cd N 33 3' %k.

g 34 [ \ 3 32 a,

ll32M ,,,,, ,,7 l 33 ,

ze , ,_) gi \

,,C

/ .'.20 37 g 3

\

32 l 35

" " ** *5Y fs 3Y h/'3i 's, d

S'j' 8 37 3t

\ 33 3, [_____ p 32 3h 34 I / . n s # ,, ,. .A

~ NARRAGANSETT BAY TRAVERSE a

taf M

Mercator Projection

&E .

s i.rins,ano. t. w Soundings in Fathoms at MLW

=

I 1 b i Reference 2 C&GS Chart 70 _.,

I FFIGURE 22!

-- -~

I

,~i 4 i--

' =.==-7

+

- 4 ,

EE l ~ ,? =-

%g -

4p 5

y v.& q?q;p.g?'

(

y,, u,

' ll':!it';,::f 'b/v* jh,g

M.(,j li,

=% 'kfAb>'Qs

• • /"y,,,,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,g...,ey'*#h /( M,n ~fu yt"r

, _l y d/ / A "a, s.

c.u. ,,

u t2&

t'" '

w '7 4kl ~ii o n i

%.M( nmi $.fi

. ' m.

i 3]{j ~ '*

M *v h O  !

0 y

%}, Q00 Q9 y/

,g t ,

4 l

f, .j 2o% "'

ll o

4

.. %, ,". g% ,--.,

f. , ) 4 l

}\\(\

- '1 Sk.d i " ~ ~ ~ r 7k 1

'/

I1 l .

1:

,,; f e%T <

t F

0 3

\

• s l f}f .l 2j@

Q t ,i Yf  ;

/

. G"T V k j,,,, f,Y Q ,, ,

's qv5p' U,*/a.

l.+

li i A s' ,,

s,

?'

1 > , m, as u " "t,f ,

p

%' ' ;l  ; g ' <>

<e s2

<s:lM i?

• y;g

.- l ,

l7 __'

• l f

~

l ,.....

. 2,g s .,

L le0 9

[ >~ > .I' 'h, 4, sa u

$g[i 1

/.

k ,

h ..-

jh

$g

]

,4 ,VNO rwe.

'a #

,yf y, " lss! 7.

'o

.- I + ,. , ,

(

....._. l h /..p ,.- .,*, .

,,' - m ,~ ,-

• Y '2' ss

s d so z ; "

• is 0, -g'. V,.2r % l A,:::g Qf. bg$. 2 h

' ir \*'

~

'l7: x

?? ..Y' u go.

/$fkf!*'

<

• n , Ncu s l

,S:

g:g;g_

27,.- s

,, 37 ,, 2 e 4

.fr-,, ,y'A -

u u ,,

e2

\r'\< x s g ~ ~ ~ << s '_ p %,',*. , s, \\

y'TRAyggg 23l '

~

90

)

~

,r

• 5 s90AST STATION 78 ?6 82 87 ennus

/

( g {~.x 53 ' "

i a :X.

Q.47 Si

,/

s 74 g,

g' yyg ,4 96 f ~

YREAERS ,

73

" 86 e),9 li '

. li- -

! 67 83

\

l

\#

\, ,

-[., .f i ,

l i ,,

/,

,. c:.f ..,.

,s

,/ , ,,,.3 ,94s_c  %.ij / 3,r c,, i g pg j 1

T r -6.o.n.u 6*

r.. . . a. - l 1, .,

i26 M" ',

M,*la >

_"l.'/A.,"...l,', ;9; '," " T .3 / s3 Qs # c ' ' .I

• .---l$3rps

,3 es . k;- .e, . n '

an o -e it. *

'h;5

/ 8 fi I h 'i \ s ,t i

f ex Y. _ l , y

'2' Cq !!k kN\ \ A '

. ,h '

~ h- )

$3C@h,hb f ,e $ ' ,,>

hif, r r$ +[ [ %'as s.5 =- e 1 -

t a.p[+-D m [2.f_'A;;5, f.4 :. y xs ** " 7'\ 's, .e ly

) --Q - ki i se x T N s=== a

(#;.

fd"(""'" E 'O.he'h J! }8 so,.

aff y J',if W"* "," e

r. .. ,,, .- o yv -

N,j... , 8 I /p y' "'% , ., , .

n., E.j i.' j ;2i"g* i "

,,f 5.t '

2

,, f

's g

ilg, .L{ .,.y o a .26,s,ut,,y" y, % ' U  ;. y ["? n

=-

25 ; / o e s /f,. -

L__,0 3 i ; {4 '

. G.t 25 'y. *J'I .,

~

1.\ \' 32 1 r*r l% ~~\ ' ,,

y aJ ! L.,, F ,g

[%c.) 3..<+ -

s, 'S _.._.)_M. .'o, o

(' .. ,vs.y 85 8 ys-

/c/ # ' ... (/j* 1 2 f

3.

-l-i? ,

ll 4r i3 ,. g -

fs ,,4 ,,j / ce** ^*', ,

,eg.p 4 ':: \

,/ ' . #.. a

..a !

• jj:.f  ! (,8 89,,F **so) / no f '3s '

=

/ .. ;39 6 ,'

NEWPOR -  ;.;/20

.lY -/

l' .

/s,6 e

2l;< sg.eo. a.3h - M-g./ G' A,d,'

l.6' g7

'--'E-- 3 1 _

.:- 2t

,vh

~

.-WV/D ~ ~,.a;v

~

1 .2 ie " :J h c.i2e

, fi'j ,o ns ,s, ,/ d , -

F QN dl;(f' ,

! o i/*'/ " !k.f$'d#'6 4 a- " 4 '

n, n,

/ 4.'.~f. ' - 'Ii,L 38 "o o

... mit.g y- 00

)1(16 y*3 " ' '

3 - '

+'

ios ,,,  %. 46.4 JTp< A -

,'. '2 - " '\,,$li [J y ~

.,,)p*

s g 3.g g,w ,

a es n2 is@

,;;E c ,g ,s. ,s.

.m '

wa

2. -

, ... .., i mu

,, .2

-s ee(y i . ,.  %

io 49,3q6 +3

", .7 git .sg c yp%a

'" g3 . s. -- 2, 3.;3sn , ,

p.,yfglpfs ,,

~

,,, os

. s p 23 o .s,

a. .s st < . . , . s. .;

9 ,,, a, s h W%,

~

a

" ds 9- *,.;aA/ '

ee%,a 7a i

%' ;2d53 <Vs5 af_

5 s3 m b 35d,, ,Wf.p/-+,

e .. -~

, 7

=

~, >v p>al ;2S,2 , , .-53, i ,,3

a. *.mi..

1. u ,, c s

• e,u .

so 'g 67

\u 'I M 8 72

,/o g,,,'~w ff W.,,

86 v g ,., 5, ,/ s. - ens g.6N gg A".T N erNrSTLE >l 4l / H \ 38 2

b v' m LOCATION OF NEWPORT GAGE

\N n "'d' 4 _ . ' ,, \  ! \ RELATIVE TO i g ~

b $$ 88 .

a

?' % ! NARRAGAN5ETT BAY TRAVER E

'ne y G7 88 Qy ) 00 '. s' s (7 75 .. 83

1. ~ O' ars

• 7' o0~._!h e, 92

{32 p' 76 65 SOUNDINGS IN FEET AT MLW

1. 80 70 '

a3 m ** l

REFERENCE:

C&GS CHART 353 as y s3 a smaamme a meessen l 1 FIGURE 23 l

947 CEV. M1) sv ure nevm ons CHECKO SY FILE SY DATE DISTANCE FROM SHORE (NAUTICAL MILES) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 MEAN LOW WATER f, - - 100 3

4 2

200 y s'

5 si 300 *

!L T

x

" 400- $

~s 3

C g OFFSHORE DEPTH PROFILE I

1. ll g N ARRAGANSETT BAY TRAVERSE --500

,Y 0 l NOTE: SEE FIGURE 25 FOR I

n NEARSHORE ENLARGEMENT ll

-. , -- 600

945.7 (CEY. M1) ' '~~

eV DATE REvitt0005 .

CHECKE3 sy FILE gY DATE DISTANCE (NAUT l CAL MILES) 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16

e

!  :  :  :  :  :

-- -- 0 MEAN LOW WATER

. 20

- 40 E a

I E

a E

-- 60 tu~

g i

l-

- 80 g NE ARSHORE DEPTH PROFILE c.

i NARR AGANSETT BAY TR AVERSE 4 3 g

--100 ll

,m .

3 l=

l \'\

mmmuummmmmmmm --I20

946.7 (LEY. 4-41) '

~

gy A Ad DATE o c/a7/73 WWOftS CHECKED gy FI1.E %M-"V Sy DATE DISTANCE (NAUTICAL MILES) l 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 MEAN LOW WATER

{

-100

-200 $1 i E

si m

300 g lii S

x H

400 $

Q

.a OFFSHORE DEPTH PROFILE m 3 l

BILOXI TRAVERSE

_soo 5

NOTE: SEE FIGURE 27 FOR

' NEARSHORE ENLARGEMENT i

• 600

_ __ .--_------e - - __

l 1

i

( l DISTANCE FROM SHORE (N o 5 'o '5 29 25 39 l i

) j

(,, l 11

,1 i NEARSHORE DEPTd BILOXI TRAV:

(

l i

5

\

8, - . _

i.' ---

o

l 4

UTICAL HILES) 35 40 45 50 55 m __

20 40 Ea I

r

. D

_J W

CD 60 n

W W

LL v

Z W

80 c-W O

4

~

~ 100

-- 120 1 PROFILE ERSE e

smaammeamesome I

~ ^

! FIG RE 27

I ee se U **

$8" so 4

O *'O*' * * * * ' * *' * * * ' ** ' * * ' **

ee Y "

8 -

e.

W -

J M E a J u=

3; E

s W e ee =

W WB W tus

== M he he est so 1'De3O De & E U U ,E 300 eA eS m me e . . . . e . e e. e . . ee < e . < e e

• E= as a z==a *eW Oa4I;eOeO f 4OO > a O O N e 4A O O r tie se O O en =0 em Q ** ee W e e ee e eee hb se 4 M en se e edi e eq M N su 2 se emmee * **

9=

• eeeeea gg 88 M I ee e as og l @ e

- so == - am em en aim ao se M Ge an E em Z O == au me se W I == D & & E ag gw

== == - t ."l M M E se 38 m M O 4 = = = UW Gn8 es eM W > ens taf = ==== W as e tus > W W Ins E Pa O e e o e e ee a e ea e e a eo e em o e g == 3 3 O > ee 3 se e l e M - k W OWia W mW.3. e>. hmk M e s. e= . i

!t '

• O .a tai to me W taf One W h4 O Gb ** 86

' d tas e e e= OO he taa O O O tu$ )

I =*

• Gob 4 WW O ** e G En l e J b tan O. O e n= se G E

, _a i) J e. e ta m O C# O O ** 3 1 E 4 ee 4 iMM SOO O J U

32>E O tue see o e t e G. **

EOO> 35 e M == Se O I

• %, == em to X e4 > em se e 9 3e ens en gl WM M st s.e .> O W U - ee EJ OO DS J

1 = =q a a g g e 3 - 3

% k 2 *E Il se em W

" G et me B B == - mi ao se J N -4h e e og z> Me te, k iA' Me O IOO E z >e m

== =* Of E ee oe a e e a eea e e e ee a e e e e e we - U hm-wqD,e e O ** eM k we 'en O tg > 9e >W== U N em4 O e e e

%AJ he EN es e Nl p IO == **

g S 44 d-> 5 2 O

4

& Em se t= 2 0= ** 1 b" O W WW me

> >> es se W

az E. ar J "U th e M et *E *e O t 3 e= O Ine==

te W h==,l lagb 6 e a. g a 3  ;

== In 2 es

'4 E O EW 20 2 MW MOOO 4 O G. 44 2 to We %sem 5 W tas O %. mo O u 31 == em se se }' l ,

O Je 16= se 33 S E l

<a e= rt u  %# 2 s. s. I Se em telt Og me se er W j 8 ta > *E *=( 4 taJ e De _h e tt f

se me >g en O e * * * * * *e * *e e e a e

• 9 e e e e o h 31 W2JU i U M W em E' O O at O em - e a C. G me == E -

O se 3 g ou J E O I' e W k m *E tan E l

3e to WhC4ND>h-ekNNDPNeheMdO9e hr be h e o 0etAee etAe==oage F eS o e e o e e o e e o ee e O tR El 2 == 0 8 U s .O, O wO e

=e e= M re 8 0 e in N4e c.

> a p O >,e

+ ==

e s W

O tN =

E O'O k Inl W tse g;h p & so O F 4 tA 4 e se ce O N e eP r en M 6 h M O ar W W

• • et B 3 32 J a= 0 E == 8 h a= F en O s't

• F h e F en O M to M e 4 == F G ins se E 4 9 o=

• e W == * * * * * * * * * ********* **** tm t{ 2 me O O & k J e 4 4 4 em e e C D == == em N - == == M O em e D.e e WI ese 4 8 > Em at ee me es ao se amo ao N N se M M se N h se es N == es me se se in, k4 W 0 esa *U i f I 1 l e em e as We O W e I f l .I C hl e e 1 s 3 ao a es J e s 's e e e F- e e e e e e ei e e se e e e o e EO-te e,

O $ E E G k E 4 - == es 4 == M *B M 4 > M gm p se O e em aA M O CD F G 8 em 0 3 O Inf 8 en 3 0 3 3 as e e e o e e e e e o e o e o e o e e e o. e e IR ue= - e =D 4 e en em O O O - == - N =* O N se O e C

• en en W k g x e ae > e O U t* =e W 9 oe E - - -, - - - iIn n, u n u n; n n ~ n u n - ~ ~ - a

> W u es a 0 0 td f l I le W

ze z 0e 0'0 0 0e 0e 0o 0e 0o0e0e0o0e e'o O 0 0 0 0e e.00e e W. e.

. .G , ,as. .e O E a.m 4.o .e .eO t.e e We g tu ,

W O .D..

-E

- - ~ M .Me ,. M e.

. . . _ O o, .e. .e.._~_e_e-

.....tn.. .

I.3 I I I l I l l le s

=

2 "BEST FIST" CONDITION FOR GALVESTON TRAVERSE, RUN B 23 f(

e-

~ - . . . .

• E e

Oh FIGURE 2R _

94A7 CEY. 441)

I syYtG DATE R-M RE w s oses CHECu c gy FILE W -f Nd BY DATE t

HURRICANE DATA RADIUS TO REGION OF MAXIMUM WINO SPEED (R) = 46.00 NAUTICAL MILES TRANSLATIONAL VELOCITY (VT) = 3.00 Kt40TS ASTMPTOTIC PRLSSURE (PN) = 29.92 INCHES-HG CENTRAL PRESSURE (PO) = 27.64 INCHES-HG LATITUDE (PHI) = 28.73 DEGAtEES MAXIMUM WIND VELOCITY (UMAX) = 115.00 MPH CONSTANT PART OF WIND STRESS COEFF. (CSK1) = 1000-05 y MULTIPLIER OF VELOCITY DEPENDANT PART OF WIND STRESS COEFF. (CSK2) = 1400-05 O

g 3 OCEANOGRAPHIC DATA ryn U*s INITIAL SURGE HEIGHT (HI) = 1.09 FEET ASTR040stCAL TIDE (HA) = 00 FEET

$@ SOTTOM FRICTION COEFFICIENT (80TF) = 00263 pq EXPONENT OF DEPTH FOR BOTTOM FRICTION EFFECT (CONS 0) = 2.000000 2E SURGEtFT) PLOT OF SURGE HEIGHT IN FEET C2 TIME ACTuAt CALCix. eERCENT 0 (HR) (X) (*) (DIFF.)

0 0IIIIIIIII5IIIIIIIIIOIIIIIIIII5IIIIIIIII0IIII 1 1 2 Z m- 6.0 12.0 3.36 4.16 3.36 4.39 -5.5

.0 .

x X* ,

= 18.0 3.66 3.40 11.8 *X O 24.0 4.66 4.18 10.3

. e X.

S 30.0 6.06 5.25 13.4 .* X N () 33.0 6.26 5.15 17.7

. .* X O@O N Z 36.0 39.0 42.0 6.56 6.76 6.96 6.27 4. 5.

7.50 -10.9 8.02 -15.2 eX x .

X

• 45.G 6.86 7.02 -2.3 Xe M d" C 48.0 6.76 8.00 -18.3

. X

• 51.0 7.66 9.05 -18.2 . . X e . .

3d 54.0 57.0 7.96 7.56 7.96 7.51

.0

.6

. X X ,

60.0 6.56 7.13 -8.7 x .

<> ~O 63.0 7.46 8.71 -16.6 . . X * . . .

66.0 7.16 7.11 .7 i N 69.0 6.16 6.17 .2

. X eX .

j 72.0 6.66 6.54 1.8 . . *X . . .

75.0 6.56 7.51 -14.4 e N 78.0 6.66 6.40 3.9

. X eX m

81.0 5.!* 5.02 9.8 . *X , . .

I SUM 0F SQUARES OF DIFFERENCES = 10.78

'M E PERCENTAGE DIFFERENCE AT MAXIMUM SURGE = .0009

' H F o 3

'c a g U AVERAGE OF PERCENT Erit 0RS FOR EACH 1/3 PORTION OF CALCULATED CURVE O FRONT THIRD = 5.912 y MIDDLE THIRD = -8.857 e BACK THIRD = -2.171 i $

l a

Ew m If ,

h ow 1

$t.AT.'so r w,,, +wi ,y

, , {3 w nr o

a ce -2,.

u

~

ns3, ri 11s as sero)nu ca.a.a

,-3 .

y4 c %' \

yp y

a. shy ~'-

V

\ ,4

• e y- -,n...

.. '// /... \& ^j p

~...._ \

o ~~~'

si N g. a o, ,.

W n' ' ' 17 i

>= ,I \.

s.- s

• , j awersr uts /\\ / .

32 ' \ ,,/ dvard3er? 3 f9'\...\\ -

/'

• - s, ,, ,4

/20' '"/ ' d g 950 4 i4,4,,&,j \\ f,,,, ,,,,, as,; N /

ls -

7e

,E a /~2"..'f ( ,,

i+

c e.e.hgr#aawSITE e

1-v ' m,c

~ ~ 73 %,%s7W

_, 3, ,-,,,. n..

k$ \

,0(/

) i.2% '. \ OBJ M, " */-

/ n I

) ,3 y'

16N / 'p==*****- l

'h '5/ . 13,N,\ ./ '( /

,e._h pa-  !

'i.( ,,

h i N6 .

• 64 \ /

ICS\ ,/ t .

'. ggh ,!N %g, g3, _, le,< use chart 1258) ,,b- I 12 . * ,\'

i I'A g3,

/ 17 ' / i i3i s ' .\; ' 91 N4 Chart ///4 gg ,, @. . 4

- s0c.., _',; , A. -  ?~ y*1 ~

,/ .

. \ s' w( 8' 2% g,

\, ' .M . '" o$

N /' ,N \ \ as 29 ' '.e

'\.

g's \

Il

\~ ~, t '** i 28 * ' -~E.' " %' 80 [ ~

21

** i\ i k'" ""

N+"93 0 A,\ 1. c -3f' \  ; $., g, { '"g j i

\/ ' , li6 's \- \' j

\

.D E

" *^ * '

hhh \ s \ 46 ' '

, . gg h au f N

t s gggp._ y = -

ie : g',

E 645jo ..'/ 38 '

+f 12 2 *g *

,' - \ ,(( ' (/ 's ~

\ " ~ ,

'h r,Q 20 h53., 'd \ 38 M

- i7 y' c  ;

\ 7 #' ' e/, G ~~s g 's 5, 16 y

s 1780 I.

\ }

f

~

'\ \ Yi he O f2 *,T

'/.,

\

se, man 0

l

~i g .,

l n ' \\ \

• +,,,'s,, s si '. s fe,/ l 453 ',,f y

[ [, ,. 's g g 'g , j 22 ( ,, , 4 j /M

\

s

-D.id E J ts ',,'., ' g)7

'e, i

' 4e sa 9 i

4 9

7

' 28

,'s ., s'8 14 35 g t'g V,,,,

AER, no O PA a v.yy, was,I' a.e.

gg ,

l

.l 5, / ', 428-  %\ .

3 -ars.

\ ,3

~ ' \.so, pay .

'- e

, J's , , 244 - -

+o63 34 x . . ..m o

/ 1810 '- / I', .4 ' N- \  ! II U' IO y g\ l. I s/ s .\ ,' '

g, ,

h h781 ',' ' '

125 5. 4 \ 27

'I \ '37 '

13 g 4 -m ,

I', \I g ' -

\ , .

\' 1 ' o g ' I- p. /. l10 _[',

y l y, \h. ~

y /i ', ' Q gj .

29 s- !2 g; q j p 00</

I f 752 44

!y h.e' 25 -

+

b } / 382 E ' ') '-  ! ?I

'* ff e 34 I o

i .- - . J', . '/N f \ o e

,$'- ~2a'oeo

+#2' O

\i 'ii' f -

l 26 * ' ~~ '*IO '1 1'62  ;

q _\ \ 33 *

-2rs ' 23 ' , t'(use cheer 1255

$yu \ ~.ili

j fg ',' , -g'* Dnw m29 s c. so- .

3/ /" ! .H5 j , { s2 L 'I5 b** ) g'5I'pou p K'k*"_ 5

[MS c i \ ,7,TWiA AP 1007 SITE LOCATION N SCALE; 1:2,160,000

% SOUNDINGS IN FATHOMS AT M LW " ""** "**"" I i

FIGURE 30

. . - __ r

I Wl * % '\lcAuNeux

' $39m} sh .

• e4

..,f's, I

0011 g DANGf AR[A lI4) y 87 / ,

\

~

,gSSILC T[ST AR 04.1 5 tl \ ( ,

,' g E

l '+s .  % ( re A-a) d' I ce sn a s s / ,,

24 4 \ g LAT.'29'o[2s "[.,,, - .

/

5 \ ,,,, ,

5

-C'g N( 1 -

22

$j l 20 ' - - le , g__ / } ,

[y 'M"'Ni ss

'N N4

' y\ s 23

/

j g< :

g3 e 5

i'd <

N 17 is i

. 9Ng *b ja l

Q w

o _ \ \

90 /  % 4 -. / _ 23 -

,,, (9 3 To 38 k,2a}/

g 26 _. j,g

// )

'\34 \ h, 24 is 2

4 g

,s

/. 5 ,3. A , ,, ,e p+,

tab \, 91 37 35 ,/

2s

,\ d~,,,, i4

,,,,s # g(

-\' 85 I"

,h, e b# /

35 3'

( \

( \

,/

' e, 39

~36

~

\

g

~

27 2s -

• ,4s+' ' 7 V-- - '+ --: / \ Q Chary lll4 g

861 / so et ~4 32 27 Y 2

29

!** , 48 28'l )$

as ,,

j s K -'"l ' -

q "eg* >

t

'\q

' us '

,2fI

/ '

y

\

~ 3,

+,.

3' g'

\ i '3 \  %~'

' 2s/

3' N r m,3,,,,3) i ++

1. 43 se6_  ! "7ey"A ,kll 2 84 68 3'

/

g N s x

~

('73.-

use LD 2

e p

j\

oss ss 10 8 42 1

.x z s  % 3 2, x\\ j s  ; '~ i3t 3{/,m s '

[ ( y\ \ \ ,,;' ~ 84 7 53 s

32 N ~~

~

4

~

REFERENCE:

j;C & G.S. MAP 1003 ( '79

\/

67 N

\ M f i4hb s ..._a m

^~ ,\,1 PMH 9 ,+

g -

. SOUNDINGS SCALE; 1:875,000 IN FATHOMS AT MLW , . _

< _ . .. s ,

m .,

[ \ / g ,

l

\ , ,

> N, \ 3wAccAssssa p

_, y

\

s

\ -[4

• 4 n ..s ja5 .

g

_g g.g

~I" ,%

gS.

L. C"Q 8

N j'

-(

yl/l !('s,,-s!_

l.

s

\ %r a G n g7 ,,o00_

/ c

!@WSIT5

/ .V TAL, BAT . -

Cry.tal River pp

~

~

,, e 'g ,,

v J. * "

& ts nog \

el i p B' h ) '\ '

N

• f_/ a. C W.*

920 . ,

, \  : ,

)

16

.s i2 is r-)- (un cha,o 125 t

g$ . j- 11 ', \

,yg .,'[ . Bayport h ,,

., g k- \

[$.(o}/

58 ll N.

\

[' 12 c-rg. p il .9 88 g q.

',, \ -:

' ~~

...../

e N* A, ,

s.

n N,

x A.

Tarpon Sprind. L

% 15 \

,3 T I .

18N 's \ -

/**

21

.9, \ _g \,,

j,h ,.78 m g

16 ' '-. \

TAMPA

' ' * '~ OLD TAAf n

.r>

s

.. ..y,_n.,j % }A ,(,fX*- ,

~

W 16 AE n R en 388 - -

s s .,

\

18 g , \ j

'~

N l ~ G '~

/ 22 . e "

,3, ?/ -

y/ '

b , .

u' ~; ~ i, ,, y; r../.,,""vJ \ .-( ~

/ '

77 23 S n 'l /

one.No"."*-

/

i 21 s K[#g 4 M **'* 4-3

~..'

5 -

18 G SA G Es

/,,g .\

21 74 ,

28 j Bredenton

( / 15 2d u. m odcr. ./

' . ) &.'/2s , ." . g . . w7 23 ,ipg,i956 15 (,_ / "'Y[a'**'

_ . ....i w . ./ _~~~; / ll 's / _ A6 t M.

• A ERO, Rot. W G G ,

• l PAT ,H c' ~

s. .- y . A, . .

3,

_ ..._ ___FIbUlb 11

8 7 8 F F F i .

3 i s  ! .  ; 5 g 3

[

llli

.y.

!Ill --

/ 'Ag7 --

g--

_-g y _q,";

Q/.r-y w,._ - v-L

, m V _u___.

l ., _.-

,,'---- lM.\

.:- u. . . . . . , /; .

r.

y -*-

w

__--o- . _ _

Q p /

/, /[.,u,,..j,\ ',', ,;

j .)

s

.\

- ll ..I\ ..

f.::,, -

.c vy

- ,f -

x - - ..: ,

• ~...,..u i, n *< w

-r- ' l ' ' -

,s.

' - . . .d xy ;/ //

, . . e a

g g g-" , n. . -

c .. /

i L.t._

3 -

) l.. y*:..ma ' 1

, m,... -

. . ...md, g/ v ,,/ ,,, . . ,

p. ,

5 r

- -- w - -_

---

7/ -/~./ - ..

_i  !.. 4 W$ /

l

) (( "I l eies

-0[m.-1rMy h,

_ l.L. I i i

,,. o y  % . o1

, c. ; .

'..,._ *=_.: . u e=_iw ev. ... . so. r- =

h ] ,

g 6 d- - -

r ll

[ --

u* e=

23b )

s ie.oo Om M. ""

5

+

/ .. ... T

.v

. i, . . .

3 ,

,-- ,. lll*'.".*.0'l E:

4g e k- 9

(.

%og g 'J '

f, .u = .

l < / i g

i ,,,.,J i, {~ \. .~

?"=. . I

.- - ==gg '

~

. r. /

$ X w i.

b

?( \\\

l\

Q ' ~'R

.m...

.t 1

- O" ,

w ^ . ' /

f Q' ,

2(g\ - [.

s A u..... j m x avspenD CONCNNTE SLDPW - l #

h g

..... N@ $ ,

q. y .. -

i7dTM e

_ t_

a. .

j w ...... O l N w a ... ....

~ W

.s- -l \ U g

s c .

V'

/

~% a; g n W

NoY A

=

PLOT PLAN 2 CRYSTAL RIVER UNIT 3 d

< (NOT TO SCALE) l ;- m .. . .

4 FIGURE 32

+5.0 , . , ,,, , ...

1 .

.m.

3 i  !

p i 3

,  ;,v

!  ;  ; , , ,,i

, l l lll W

e t ,i

, l

, i i ,

l'+

i L i1% I i I ! ! 1 I E +4.0' ' ' ' ' ' '

a <

.i 1 .

i \  ! i !

e ~~--

l ) l 5 l V ' '

g si i i y

> i 1-[ I '  ! '

W$

+3.0 Ni ,

ia

• 1g gj'

} s

( , t g i i I N I i/ 1 i i

' 1 1 1 i

\ I 1 i i a If

&X l I i

= t i,

i \, , -

J I' 1 i E 1! X / \t i ti i% >

' iU !

1. i

+2.0  :

'i:o  :  : , l w ,

i ., i i W l! I i

LA. Y v  ;

1 -

w -

O

, ll

!1

\ ,

2 S >= 11 (1

,1

< +1 0>

'.1, I

i l >

. m V, J l W T I

\

% ----. 1 1

11 1 0.0  !

t

'O L

i I

I l W X y '

w.

w

-1.0 '

1 1

' f I i l l D.- .

i i i i i i i 2 -2 0' ' ' ' ' '

l 0 5 10 , 15 20 25 <

g TIME (HOURS)

O W

M U

W 85 ASTRONOMICAL TIDAL CYCLE  !

_ WITHLACOOCHEE RIVER ENTRANCE - JULY 10,1972 G

4 '

i l W l s maames a moooses N

FTGTTRR 33 .

W sd J

Ck: '

W l Q

2 (MlW MO*138 133d) Hid30 J Q O O O d O

,Cc- o w O.

O O l

~ e m 0

M e_~ a,m , _

gg

_gggggggigg,mg

-, ggE  :....,4 l

8w~mh - - _ r ...,r . ........ :x .

u

. ,- _ am_h - n m m.. ..

m r:r: . .

. . c. .:r..

g

. m~._. ~.

mm -

~ . V.. . .. .. . .....>:::.

5 N.-

I<)<i<)<i )<) >) m<h) <

)l)< il

)l)<) ,1l )

l l

/.,.:d m..:::.. .  :.?)V..:

• .V. .Y.:.:

.:..:k:

• '.4.'

. ::. a 7.; .

.- ~a

.V:::..:::**. c ,::::I::

• .V a a

W >. 99<l99 ,< .

& x= U<N<l<l<y <

< N 9

}

<N< ~.*g.Q~.Q. .

.Q.4:. .Q* .*Q** p Qs =Qs:p- .PC Q.

ge Q.Q g< l c N .::. .*-Q.q.Q's.*f..vQ e'.:. *:Q.Q.C. r.*h*.r h . p: p

, \/ <>

\

>l ,b &,

i Alp > gl i .

• -Q%.Q. .Q.Q Q:p*. Q c:(.:pC P :-

m, w<i<i<in<e

\<\ <

i s s% .

. *.s:..\.:Q..:: *j.':*.. a. %s .:% . ::.sa7.:.e b,.s::'..s .:..

.. > > ><i i i i< ><>t . .Y 7. -

W<I<>,\ ,y< >am<yy pp c.s.p y o .c 2.Q..Q. . :s::. :. .::s::s::.. ss:s

. r:. .:.. .:..;{.. .:*.. .:...Q. r:.4 . c. r.,. c. s. . .

n <\

\ \,> >,> >< < .pt. . .Q. .2 .: .C. Q.Q .Q..C.u.:.Q.. .. . .P . h .

.. .. ..c Q..),..?.......;....v...............

m <

<>><q< i ,.

.Q..y.. ..

a /\ / <h,.I;<f..........................s..................3

..............<

\ i w

o h s'..C ,. .A.C. p .p j **~

c~~ < < < %a <

V

a'c.a;.a.

e:. '

.Q.Q;g*s.

• .1 -Q.c...s.s* k.::s. 3.*.. s(..< s: ph

-I

<>  ::.q

.  ;.  :::%...s*.0 s:

. :Q.;.r.:C'r::.:r.:1 r:.r:

- " W>k< > > > > Ih >

& :.*::s.a.lv::.;s V.

s 7<.

s.

s  : ..::.n:.

YV**  :::s:.7s:.~':::s:%"  :

=

=w ta

5cs.7;1:.:s::sb4:s:s::. :s:::s::::.':s::s?s:.*

y bhhhhY\ \h  ::s::.E.* ::s::.*: .  ?  ::. Sam 3 Wpp,% ,h

:* .s::.<:.{.4.*.7s:.

< s.7)k;::s::.' e::. 7. : . : . *.S.*::.5:::.  : .

.. s t'% g.

-I )<HHy << < <

7. . .~. 5: :s.a.:.7 s

.<.4 %r > g 0.7..::.4:b. V:::s::

Q ) yy yp>n>V<

, U p.

, *:.V.7s ..

7. ::. :.. ..  :.a t . :s  :.*:: .

> l > l >

.. ..7.s:$:.a

.. , Q* .::. :..:5..~l:.. .. :s::s 7:.< . :s::s:: we *

..Q.. * . V::s::.t'*::::.*::.O Y:. a ::

s..::...s * .. :.

o ..

?  :..::...

.Q.p*Q.Q.p Q.. s

• Q s

p*u.Q.Q.::u. . .'  :

..Q.. .:..h.. .- *p..*. M b> >b>

L Wm

..v. :, Q. Q. .:. .:Q.h*.

,4.eQ.<Q.Q. 4<<.bq Y > .

(2. s . .

.Q . .

>~ o  % ,

. :s<;.. ,..C...Qs..*g..Q.Q.f.:. Q.Q. :s..s.s

. ... .:Q.:Q. . o < >

o- /p,D<m,p . 5.a.... s..C.....  : :p.Q.a.. ...s .::.  : ...s .. ..1.:.

. .. :.. ...:s:.:. .. ..- a ......

.:....s...*....:...

Q.Q. :.Q.C.; .. .. . :. . y tt} R 4 i i i ..

.rp p@C.. h,. (*s pC..

. b..Q.Q./{.17.:.q:..::: s r h**:1. C ..::.a.

..Q.s s

L.

:. 7.:.a.

• s e. :s. 7.:.a. . .::.:CpO === tO En .,

z ><

s: Q .Q.

/, M<H i C.s r. c p* Q s; P. Q { r. s Q v

.. > ,yHyH ::.s:.p...:

I

> i ii r *p.

.?.:.Q.a:.Q. g.

...:s:.. ;s.Q:.Q{.Q.. .

• . .::....C.A. 4 .h .'r*

Q.p= .. *~>~.: Q Qr.b. sv:s.c...Q.p* Q

...:.C..r' h OZg

..p.

..:.. .. .::. >:5 .r 7 :...:..::.

a i vii i Q.. *p..r .S

< s

7. .::.. . . ::. ::. y W .,.

• p.* [gj y >

i .. .

p y!y .. - ,e.c. . s ..

..a".a.Q . .. Q<. p**.*: s r h {: Q .?. ::s p'.*:::Q  :. .Q..Q.

x .r p* pC.?: Q.s..  :

\ .

. . k.s.Q.?.. ir<.  :

!, y > , , >pl>.O...c.:. Q., . . Q. ... s. .$..pc.s.

c r.::.Q : ..:: c p*C...', Zg M O y>ypy g. .::...  :< .: .. .:: .. :

.: . s

......... ..q::.:s<

..: 7:..q:.a.:< .r.

5.):::::..::.15::s, 7..:::..

• O ~J

x-m o I i

ii<> <>.> .::.. :7..

< '.v.:7s:..:;.q::.v:..

.  ::. 7.:... . s::. :s :.:. * .*::. s,., -

a g,--

byhy }:?..Q.

.Q. ;.;*Q.*.4. .

s..Q..;;.:Q..

.. r s r. .c. .q.Q..Ql::g.k..

o pQ..Q .c.Q.. .

.?s.pr

• g:.

• h*pr.

:.a.C. .

.. 4:.:..Q .

?

o*s s:Crai~?

Q- q-Q:{Q.:c.p. 'QQ.Qs; ss :*@d?. pLgjp}r .. .

y M>d ,:.j.:*Q.r.r.?.  :

s ., :Q: - Q. C Q:Q::C .

Q:Q. .p.Cr:i W)u),E.:,

CI O q>W> a p Q.: C.h

\ ..

. .Q C s:.p C.jQ.Q. c.:s.:s.h Q .C Q.Q.C .

s .. s

.:Q.p?p. .Q s Q.::Q Q.. :p . < gEy E

f . s:

i.?::{.p:.v.Q :Qs:

?:p:Q:o ,

• g)~c.:.Q.pC<.pc.Q.,fo M

w

_a u.

W<p, .C< <

r p Q.. .r::pQC

, .Q. . C.?

QjQ.C s.::C.vQ..ra3, 4s Q:.Q. oQ .Q.:k.:;

.?ss?..Q.Q:C V.C.C. . :oQ.Q;<

Q:Q

pQ rb. r; QW O H>> q v1 p.r.::p: .c:Qs.?

H< . .-

u. W

• s.pC.Q.,nQ.Q.:Cq.:Qsk.

Q .C PC.Q.o .p< .:c.vQ:. .Q. s s 5 e>i;t W :<p- . .

i h .Q .Q .. ?.

O o-- W,<i f{Csc?:r.?.. QqQ.C.C - Q .P C.C -Q. .?*sh.Q..?.Q.Q c OW W m:.p*.r:f.r. 3.o :PC :c:p Q.* .r:k.?c.Q::Q.p c? .pc..?.pC.QC.f:C.p<C.Q.

z **' <

CsC. s

• p pQ: 2.Q.<:c. ? bQ: s . g y, f--

4  : .

C.Q

p. i H,a> :rffzs.r.:r.

.h.*.k..r.k..r.: c.h..s..k..c.p%. r.h .Q.3,. 1:.Q. . . s..h ....

. Q<p.c.. ; k,,

H, ...:.s.D:5:a.:.:..g:::.:.::.:. ,(;...s. :sr , :*c . ht::Q.Q.c

.Q.O.:.

...c: ;;..::... . ::s..::... ..a.U m < ,

s

..". q .

a

.q ..:

c ... v:::.... p...::::. 7.g. 9... ..C.s.Q.

w::..::...a  : ..:* .. t ;. ....

s.Q. 7. .:: .:..::... ..::::.. 2 Q

-- I Y ~.:.:.::

7.>

.sP).q

>C..

.: :s: :.a.

.yll,.

. ., ;y::.a .; tv:

C ....:a .7.5: . ..::s:::

7..::..:s:.1::..:::a;:.,q::..:::.a.. :.. :::.v::.

v:: 7...

.:.7..:::. 5..q:.a,

. 7. < o g

b i

.Q.::C:k

.Q

r.::C..

.p%r.P

r. 7..:.\.

} .

..q:.  : a.Q..Q..C..

.:P .?.. .:r:Q:Q

Q.%r:s.>.r:c.:c:?:

s..c. .

..Q..Q u:

. v..Q

.?:..

rkr.::Q

s..p..

... *:..C.4. . v..Q

.:5.

.c.::Q m m.

s

.g.g.. 5.

pCs.

y o.

N .

b s.p:<s.r:f

. :e

.;.. D. :.c.C p

.p*.: .

r.r:r.r::'Lg:Q .p<p*Qs C.

Q. s;

.' .p*.:Q.c::f.o.:r.Q.r..

s s Q'. s.Q.Q.C:.V Q.Q .?<.Q.Q.

.n'.p'.r:

s h.c :.Qs .ptQ..Q.o  :.: MC.t+g; m, g p , ;..Q<sD'.A.<&..QQ .

f. Qs ..c.cs

. .Q.C

. . . ..c..

.e .

..fQ.Q. s. .:.  :.Q.cr. s.: :h.< 2 - Q..

s ,: m d

...". .q e2...Q.Qs?s.Q Q Q.Q v:Q, Q .Q.:..f..

s. . . ........

4 . .

O  ;;.

.;...;::.d s: .

a . :.q 4.1s

. .. . . . 454 - s w 7.:. 7<. ::a5.1 (3: q:.c)v;::::.7..:,  ::.

q:.5.:.:s.(.7. .L 5.:? ys..v.7  ::a.:...  ::.:.. ..::..:.v..

.4.:...

..::. a y 7.a; . 5 7:. ..:.

. .. 1. .5.. ..::.,,:.7<.

5

~..:.. 7.s.7. ..qv 7.:.s::.h:

..:.c. .q:.7 a.a. ::s::.

.p::. .v:.y:..f:::.:..<:.*.v::..::.

. :. 5 ::s Ok g .  ::..::..::s::.. 7.q:

.. . '5::.::.<::s.ti:.a:s::...

s ~s :V.. : ::.a. .

2. ... . . . - .. lp .

.s. C.*.Q..Q..Q..C..

. . . .. ... . . .s (.?...*..'p>.*s..*..Q

..* .' r . .. .

.h..*... r.. ...:r. "*p.'.,.

" C....:n.....

. f . . . . . , .. % ,

SITE I

.v.. C.:. 13. .*.. *..3.7 ": ..:<

Ov::

s.7 .  : ..: *.is *0-

• o"v.o"a.**.*.

5". : .*:.g. ~. "> : '0."> . O.-">O*:, M g< m o r.

.s O~-  :.Y:,y:::.

i.C=..h ,k .O.:.*:.::s.:.:l:m.O:a  ::s: ;.a . O. s:

...q:.t::.q::..

s. : .: .r*. . :*D..C.

O:.0.7.:s.d.b.'7sm .*... :::.O:*::, a mv::t*.*.a.

.e y:.'s.<

W  % s :.= ;:s%:s.., 4.;..*.Q.. ,.;s: :s.. c. ,,.a.r.:r 5.*.:yr a s . r.:r.

?.. .s.. .p ,.:.*. r..,*: s..C:.

u O O

] r.f:::. {: 2 tt) (I)

O O O W C O O O g 2; N gf' M3 C:)

eO lu

( i.

u mges aaseesee N.

FIGURE 34

_ _ _ ~_ ~. _ __ -

.J W

> (MW M01381333) Hid30 W

.8 O O O O O O m O x C m y - N W C-=

qqqqqqqq<qqqq<q g.,q,q<qqqqqqqq qqq ,

H.

W < < << << < < < < s < < < << < < < < <

qqq

<q l <q < q q< , .<q <q

.:*.g. l l,.4

,g l l l l<l<l l l I l l l l li l<l<i l l i<l l l l l i l i l l i l l i<f i l l > *~ ;,.. l. .....i *.

hbhhh%Shh%SWlh $$$$$$$$$S$$ $$hh%%hhhh  ::

9 a WlWM%m WiWa%%$

Yl<<%<hhhh ihh Nhil%hhhhh M  %$ Wi%%%W '

i 0:ca c*:c." .

,h '.. 8 :% ::3*:>I.O:; I O:-

w , <<<

I<gW<l<Il < g<><l<l<l<l<l<l<l

< < a < Ihhhhh $hhhh<h%5

... :l.. l.:::.".'.

> . I i Ig i i i i , l } l l l l l l<l

>'><>< l -

4 H h% %h  % '

hh h<

ihM<S$hh IhhShh hl hl 'thhlh h[l c. :*=*c.

g m n I <a ><l<>< l<l<l<}<l<l > ><><l l<

a :. :..* :.

.% . ;c :.%.:..

l l i I I l i l I i i i i

< MWaWeMWn <

c< m %gY*%:ll:.l).*2. v.eM.s

• . . l l:* .: a ::.  :. e:.*%... ;. *. :% S ydbqg<, i<qydd<Hq< < i i t q ..

p < << <

N>dI<q<Jydyd <

'<d . - *"' .

I l I l<I<l<l l I > l 4 > lhhlTaS lhh%hh }l$$hhhhh$h l. ..l....*. I.*l l.

%$hh$hI)h h I'.l4. "cf: . : . *ll:l":.

E Mhhhhhhhhhl y

W y Ea

$h$hh'i$$$$

hW Wll<lh<%<sh<W<H <

iSh%h$$yh th i% i5h i

<H<

H<

"::l.::l..:*.:::...

." ..:* a

. ~. . . . *=. .

• l:l.".".I.*l.l..

"::."3:.3:*. ..""."."

i i l l i l i

.-a=..1c.

=:,.::.  : .' :l%.."::.

a

.: . . ~. . .~:. ::a;;;.=:::.

yM<y(!s9y?<Wh<W< H< P. :.::a**. ."t:*.

I i I i i i il

< I< < < < ><l <

i i l Hh < < < .. .

m-- ;y l9 y,Hy;<f <

y<Qyb %y,n J

.c . , .

Wn m<WmW hYsss %w< .*.: c:.c: :( c:: c:q.t.::.c::Q:.c:*.*: c:.*:

> t t

.: . .. I rs I

, , i i > > l i i l i i , i i , i l

. c:.c. . . . . c:c:.

ec:.

r..c;c:.c:*.c:c:.c::  : . c: . . - ec:. . .<

w f.c:.c:c:.c:::*c:c:c::. i My (<by<yyh< yh,y' <V< < < < .

. . %c.

W H ) llHH<H>,h H w H< V l 6 i G.

c.r:c:.:

. :Q . .'.c:c:.c:: fc:.c:e*c:::Gr:.c:.:c:.. c*. :

)

• 1 WH)n< Wn%Wn M .,,j )q I ) ) I I I l l l l i > I $h$$ . . . . . ""

• g.

.8 WnWnWMWn u%WM .:.c.:c:c.tc.(:c.c:4p

• tc. .c: .c: .(:

.c.. c:c#**.:{# k ,y%

• • c(::

z y H, - p::.:: .r: .c::*. c1

.4f.c:.:.}c:.r:c:::.::C:c:.

< Q ~3

?<(h9yHH<H<><H O

-I >

> 6 > >

\

q<

\ H> >xN>a<H< <

i l i i :+p".cc:c.c:c l.:.. " *. .. ."-.:*. .

c. c.:.*.c::- -

gm

• ..n::.:l..:*.. l..  :* .."*:.-

q <

hq<'<V<? bqqd qH<gH

< < < . i,. . .

• g.U) a@< l* : . ; ..:l.

at: < <

7 u \ l yh l I i q l

L ,. M  !

..x ":::. :l:..:: *.l ...." . . . .

l I i t t l ..

%h n M h M $% EY MY> t:-l p

W<M M M%  %$ O%

H< Wm .:l.:

• " ::.3. ::l.75:

3 i

d/>Jyyqy<d<99<d9d i l<i<> > l l<I i<>

i 99 4

i i<

' C H// /' a :.~.

i

< 7"::*=.l:

.. . a '.a a l. : . :t...l.

.* * .:l.

- - ... ': .":l:*,l. ::...

a

l. . %- .* :**ll. l."."..". l. l

. ~::.*.. . .":.* ".-

u 1 !O O

-:*a.a:

l

.z <

WMWiWM % co H' .ca :) c :ca : 4.*a ?a

• i

• h- @ 6 C*.c: .c: ..

NH<?H<dyH V< W< .: LZg H  :  : ..* c:a c:. .c:..c:*.c:c:.c:r.c: .c: .:M>

W o~

\

YMYM yy l I l l I l > >

nW y%>

\ n > \

lhI\

% y :.:*.c:.c.c::y.{.::y:c.c:Q.9.:*c:.::.(:b{.c:.c:c.c

c:.. * . . . . :

a o m yyyy y W WH

..c.. .:g;:., c. .

.:g:.r: .*CA*.c:.c:c:.c::::.e.C.y:%'.c c:. . ..::G. c:.c:c:.::

\

n y,s

< o byhy?y? < ,

y y? :.c::y:.:*.

!> 2 .:

.g.,:. . . . . ,

c..r:c:.c:c::: O zm j H>M' ' .c::::y:c:.c:.

~c * . . .c: -

m J3 H>JHHH>N>N

• l .c:c *c:. .:' c. *c#C' . .

s

> > l > \ l > > . ..-

Q*.. c::::{c:.c:c:::s:.::*C.::.{.c:c:

\ .

m %W>a%WM w Y - - - f *c#

d WH4 O

x %w<WyH, %M Y , ,

y

< .*.c

.:c:.c::y::.c:.c:. . ". +.,. P- -

.cc:.c:c:*.r:::*.c:.c:::.c:\::*c:.:.)c:.c:c:.;.c

..- M y) v3 u H>H>><HH0 H> )? . .

. c. ..c.. . c:.

... . - . . c. c:. c:.  :: .:.

WN/M d NM

> > > > > \ > . .

,':.::*c:.:.:.:***c:.:::.::.

Q g x><

w w w<M<yy %%, %> *c:. c:.:c:.:c.:c:.

c. c:.:c:.:.

.:**.:c:.:C.-c:. Wu yc:.c.::.:.:.:c::yy,,

.::. c:.::::c::. c:. c::

9  :

a < < < <

Q <  :  ::. . c. -

u,

?H<HH<h H m.

't; W

\

> lH l M%>% %

l > \ lI

?

\ \.c: :c:.:.

. c.c: .c:: .c:. .:.c:c. .:.yc:.c.. .: .: .:c..::*..c::. . :c:.c:.

. c.c:c.c:::.:.

, .e::.::.::: .:c:.. c:..:..c:c:.. .. .?:::c: Wg H

m WNMW N n .c:.c::**.c:O.

c. : .-

. .::.c. ::..:.y

.:.,c..c.c::.-

c.c:c:.:Q.:**.c:c.*

,:c.:*.c::

.e. :y . ::. :3.3

c:.c:c.c:: b h@<MyH W

. : .. . *:. . . c:.,C H,q<

.c:.:::.:::*.:*.c::::f.c:::c:.::*c.c:.c:*.:::*  :**c:.:c.c:;;  :: .?:t a bi i H \6 q[>v  :.  : . .:c.c:  : . :c.  : .. c s

I WMYM )::

> li

/ :*.?

• .:c.:e:.c:c. c. .::gc:.. .  : -

.c c - .:c:.:*.:c:.c:*.c:::.f

• R m

N h<yhyy'.*...:* < .

.::{c:C:.5.::.:c:.:c:.:::.c:c:.e:

.c:

c.

c:.

c::.c;.

w

:.::c:.c:. ::*.c... .. . . cl:2 y

hVM<

• .::9.:%.c:c:*.:::c:.g].c:c:

.= c. .c:: ..

c:.:c:.:c:.:c..?.y:.c:]*

.c::D.c.:c:**c.c:

.

• f.c:. .

. : .: .c: .c:: : .c:c:c:.c:*.:c:.:c:

W 6 Y<V<  ::. ?*c:.c;.:? .c: *: .c:.:c:.c:c:.:c:.c:c:..  :. '. .. c:.

\ \\ \ \ \

. c. . .  :

.* . . :y . .c:]* * .c:c.c: . .

W M .c.c::.c:c.c: -

0?O:f: fcfcf;. ;y.c.c:c.. c.e*.c..,c:c.:c.:e.c:c.c:c.c:c.::

• c:c.c:c.6: *c:c.c:l ..

w

> m Y cf::f::f:. O:f::f ;O:fJy.;;O:f:yf;;fQ bW  :'..:;'..::..:::.*::.

• :* i.  :...:*..: .;: ..

4 ~

. 7.:..::..::'..::. ..::* i:.::;:;.7...::::.5";:;*. . ,.,.::.7..*:::..:;*..::.. "..

o ?H :: .;:;:;.;...::;;;.*."*

" .~.

H I :::.;;;:;::;  :* .:. . .:'.

• .;... ". 5: . *.. . 7. .. *.

5.";:.:.:.

.  ::.;.~.7.. ..

." .7.. :;*.. *.;.7. :::..:;* :::.;::..:;*.;::

• :: 7.;. ;:: .*. :. ." :. .

" 1

>l . *.

$ ..::. .7

. ;;.- *

5 *.":'.  ;.I.)  ;..:-*:*... . .::.";.  :*:;. :. '

9 i

'.".~;.".. ..

:.;.;.

c'* * . . . " .

• • .  ::. 7" . "..

. ..

. ::::7:..."*.7..

\

l i . ::. ;;;; . :. ..:;. ' ;. .~ ;. *::::7."*:*.".::::;.*:*0".  ::* *

?

..:;.7..;.;. . ':  :;.. *

\

..:*.: ..:' :*:l. :'" ;;:;- .;:....::.;.;. ;;7. ;. :;..::

h. .;*:;..:::;:;.;';::...*:.  :'. .y. '. .." .  ;. : :..::.;;;.

O  :. -  :

W M

u

I

• :..::.7.. ";:. ;~.

• .4 .f.. .

. .":}' " *. ; :...:... . . .. . .. .;; :' :

. ;;' ;.5:;.;.

::...;.t.:.::;; :;.;. :.;;:

.. :.. :.f ., ..., . : .;.: .;: . :. .:c.

I I w -SITE I . :.. ,.l:.4. . . . . . ..,

• . ..:- f:.z. .

fl,: .l:,:f;. .: ..:-:.;;.. : :;z.::.l.

. ..

:;.:fl:.:4.

...f  ;.'. :.. l

> 2 . .

eu o--  :..::.*.:::.:::. . . . . .. .:..:..  :."..;::.;."..::t.;.":.

.*..*:t.;..::.

a* ::..::..::... ..

.. t.'.. :;;;. ...: .. :

• . a.:L_- ,

I i

o o o o o 1 m o m o

- - m

=

1 .

W f! mmmees a neooses N i e

8 FIGURE 35 .._ ,. _

eten enmagn sh4 ehw. +-m-.,mW W -

32 i ,iiii,,,,iiiiii,,,,,i,i,, . . ,

H ARA TERS -

29.4' MLW

- R. = 24 NAUT ICAL MI LES i i ii i i i mi 28 r- V t= 20 KN OT S

! 'l '!'/l!!\

i

, , . , , ,, s ,

! I i i  ! I I Il T  !

led i i i '

> .  !  !  ! It t  !

g  !

i i

i l

1 ..

i ,

1 46 l

i I, I Ei i i

1 i a i

i TOTAL ST ILLWATER LEVEL t f:,; l \; ; ;

I 24 .

i , i i i .

A+B

, , i

. 1 ,,

i i ,- -,

i 1,

,p 1

s iiii 1ie i

) I i i f# \ *1 i I=>

I e l , i I It i i i 2,

i i i

, ,/ t #1 L!  !

E

, I; , r i

/> I 1 W I / x ,

> (i i  ! L e

CI3 aw ,

I E i i ,I \, .

, , i I 'fI l / 1 aC i i i i i/ l/ '

i , i/

H /

, 1 I, f W I II I Il W I ,, I LL.

~ L  ! ! /

i c +1 ,

2: i I  ! iII  !

M o 16 i

i

,I ,,,/. i i i

i/ iI, i ,

H / if !

! I I I I i .

SJ / o AzAURRIdANEStiRGE(A') -

/ I

( W ,

i i M i / Il j7 i I I!

W ==

i /! I t ,

I

>= 11 i I i

< #1 i r 3 /!! / .

J I: I / i J f If y e-o y f a l=

m 1 'fi L s I g i I;

, / /

r /

r /

I I l f

e i r ASTR0t40MICAL cm,11 m i, TIDE (B) . i 2r, i ,

i i ;i,iiii ii i i 4 ' ' ' '- ~~ ' '

/ ~ , ,

./!  !

','is#7

• 6 ' , t e 4 i mi y i l

! i e 4 TYr7$3 I -

[ I i

k i -

i 0 ' ' '

o 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 s W

u TIME (HOURS) SINCE HURRICANE CROSSED CONTINENTAL SHELF l n! 1

=

3 STORM SURGE HYDROGRAPH

~

c a

CRYSTAL RIVER NUCLEAR STATION

~ . . .

FIGURE 36

944.7 CEV. 4 4I) ,.

av DATE ftEVIS1000$

CHECKE3 SY FILE SY DATE i

WIND C0MP'0N'E^ NT  : l':-II .

I~~- '

-~--

i

' '--Y- -

~

i: i-TT  ::

FOR F = 9 NAUT. MILES::-d_ - i -

I ' --- --

sky ,P " "

iiiiiiiiiiitiiiiiii ---

~. 'W'I'N'D' 'C'0'M'P'0'N'E'N'T' ' ' ' ' l_i i 2 '-/ ---

%i FOR F = 5 NAUT. MILES ==

~~~II 125 /7 ~ ~

i

_f-; .----_

1: __ I_

Hs = SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT-- I _

~

-h_/__.-- '

Ts = SIGNIFICANT WAVE PERIOD::: g

-y __ F = FETCH LENGTH  ::: ^z e

z . ___._.

O f Ho

~~~

$ 100 20 h

l. [  :- _--.

g-

[z{ _.

(~ __  ::::::: go 55

"'~

Hs'FOR F = 9 itUT. zE f >ILES--'---

___f: ,I _ki gE

~-::

~

{- ' .___

/__.

7 ow

/i:

p VgC. .

m ,

-- -= '-c::: ::::.  %

..__ _ Es f_a ___

5' --~~

r 4___..  : i -d_3 .__

2 eg _.-l-j-_ -_. -_ _

_f:--.-- q+_. <n gg

/  ;

$ _._ s 'FC R'F ' =~ 5 N f t l . > ILES- ;::- -

33

~ ~

1. '~~

50 -

$ [: -, O g ,m

-(.,Y jT ' FOR s 'F = 19' N'AUT. MI'L' S: :::: .'

> [ r  ;

u_t_ u. i

~z

~

bbbb __

>_r  : ::: -

T FOR F =.'.51 NAUT, MILES:_. .:::::_

g-_ _

)?)p_:

r -- - .

s p <

f---- ff-- -;;; 4-

, .., f -. - . - . _- -

~~~~ ~

~, _ __. . .- _._.~1 _ _-.--. _.__ _ .

..o I  :.. p.

""-T- TE

~~

:1.-  :::: .:- : -

.~f. 1------H- I-t -

E O N ---l- - -

4-. . .-

h::--_

g a 22 0 23 24 25 to O TIME (HOURS) SINCE HURRICANE CROSSED CONTINENTAL SHELF

.w I f,. I. WIND AND WAVE CHARACTERISTICS VS. TIME .

40 , ,

I g-MAXlMUM RUNUP ELEVATiONJ i

j - $ M MED' INN'RhNUP w

i eiu- c ~,m,x e -EL.- EVAT 10N 4

o 2' Mix s T %

g S(\

5 FA E 30 3 ,ii, i, ,, , , , . , ' \\

Y a>

T'OTAL ST I LLWATER - LEVEL M~N's Y1

, , . ,7 x,

1 1 a s v z e s n

m-o

, [,h C H CD / , x ZW4 f I \ X ow f f .%

f i s Sib ,7 /

$w"x- ,

l Co 20 , , r SC5 mz- ,L '

W< r

>> . 1 J w<w i i

>za _Hb . , 4 r Hs

<w .iii

.J

• -- wo!

e w -

'r  !,%f x

N v l

s ,1 f . x s 4 ~

z r / x t ,1 e x y  : '

l l \

w __, r i 3

/

10 / i s

,s a-T ii _ _g i.

_s lib = BREAKING WAVE HEIGHT I / 7 ' A Hs = SIGNIFICANT WAVE HEIGHT / / /

Hm = MAX IMUM WAVE !lEIGHT / /I

{l PERCENT WAVE IN THIS M //

W ANAL.YSIS /f/ l 8 T = SIGNIFICANT WAVE PERIOD., W s -

t 0 0'O 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 5 TIME (HOURS) SINCE HURRICANE CROSSED CONTINENTAL SHELF E

4 DESIGN WAVES AND WATER LEVELS VS. TIME l

u - . .

~

i .I FIGURE 38

944.7 CEV. 6-41)

Sy DATE REVIS1000$  :

CHECKE3 SY FILE

~

O SY DATE imml l

=

100' i 233.5'

=

WAVE DIRECTION 600' i 2,: , ,: t PLANT g EL. 30.5' A STILLWATER LEVEL 3 EL. 10' g

.;P ROTECT I VE ', " ', . , '

PUMP ^

EL. 4'g

," +>

JEMBAffKMENTJ't, ^ ,' HOUSE EL.-21'g l

'if0'6THi' ' '

I s

• t ,cPROFILE .,

3 2, !', IB.A.N.K'1,

. ij '> ' - ' ' '

' ^,

I s' , ' -

s

~ ;,' ,7 >

J'

,s,,,

?

su~ A., ,_ i w __e;,_ __lA ~ub__,a. _.-._ _ , a,f_ _ _ _,uh e,s

^ ' e SITE CROSS SECTION SECTION A A i

NOTES:

M ELEVATIONS ARE IN FEET AT MLW DATUM E , CRYSTAL RIVER PLANT DATUM IS MLW DATUM PLUS 88'.

e O

w

C 1 _ ._ .

LIST OF REFERENCES

(

l. Hendrickson, J.A., Djou, S.K., and Reti., G.A.,

" Hurricane Storm Surge Analysis," in Computer Applications to Engineering Problems, Dames &

Moore Publication EP34, May 1972.

2. Anon.," Interim Report - Meteorological Characteristics of the Probable Maximum Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coasts of the United States," Hydrometeorological Memorandum HUR 7-97, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Weather Bureau, May 1968.

3. Bodine, B.R., Revised, " Storm Surge on the Open Coast:

Fundamentals and Simplified Prediction," Technical -

Memorandum No. 35, Personal Communication, May, 1971.

4. Wilson, B.W., " Note on Surface Wind Stresses Over Water at Low and High Speeds," Journal of Geophysical l Records, Vol. 65, No. 10, pp, 3377-3382, October, 1960. l l

S. Keulegan, G., " Wind Tides in Small Closeo Channels," l Research Paper 2207, National Bureau of Standards, l 5, U.S. 1951. l

6. Van Dorn, W.G., " Wind Stresses on an Artificial Pond,"

Journal Marine Research, Vol. 12, pp. 216-249, 1953. 1

7. Marinos, G., and Woodward, J.W., " Estimation of Hurri-cane Surge Hydrographs," Journal of the Waterways and Harbors Division, ASCE, Vol.94, No. WW2, pp 189-216, May, 1968.

8. Anon., " Report on Hurricane Carla, 9-12 September 1961,"

U.S. Army Engineer, District Corps of Engineers, Galveston, Texas, January, 1962.

9. Anon., " Tide Tables High and Low Water Predictions 1961, East Coast of North and South America," U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, 1960. I

10. Tide Datum Branch, U.S. Department of Commerce, National l Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Oc' s l

Survey, Rockville, Maryland, 301-496-8468,  ;

Personal Communications. i s

-- . ~ ~ ~ . - - . - ~ . _ _. . . _ . . _ _ . . _ . _ _ _ __ , _ _ . , _ _ _ _ ,, , _

- - - ~ --- .

LIST OF REFERENCES - 11

( 11. Tide Prediction Branch, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, Rockville, Maryland, 301-496-8060, Personal Communication.

12. Shalowitz, A.L., " Shore and Sea Boundaries," Vol. 2, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Ocean Survey, Pub. 10-1, 1964.

13. Anon.," Revised Surface Wind Charts for Hurricane Carla,"

Hydrometeorological Memorandum HUR 7-76A, U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmos-pheric Administration Weather Bureau, December, 1964.

14. Anon.," Wind Speeds and Direction in Hurricane Audrey near the Louisiana Coast, June 27, 1957," Hydro- .

meteorological Memorandum HUR 7-57 and HUR 7-57A, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Weather Bureau, July, 1964.

15. Anon., " Wind Speeds and Directions Over the Gulf of Mexico During the Hurricane of October 3, 1949," U.S. De-partment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Weather Bureau, Memorandum HUR 7-37, August,-1957.

I

16. Tide Processing Branch, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, Rockville, Maryland, 301-496-8288, Personal Communication.

17. Anon., "Isovel Patterns for Hurricane Carol (1954),

Including Details in Narragansett Bay," U.S.

Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and. Atmos-pheric Administration Weather Bureau, Memorandum HUR 7-54, January 1959.

18. Graham, H.E., and Nunn, D.E., " Meteorological Considera -

tions Pertinent to Standard Project Hurricane, Atlantic and Gulf Coast of the United States,"

National Hurricane Research Project Report No. 33, U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Weather Bureau, 1959.

-19. Wilson, K.V., and Hudson, J.W., " Hurricane Camille Tidal Floods of August 1969, Along the Gulf Coast, Biloxi Quadrangle, Mississippi," Department of Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, Atlas HA-404, 1969.

(

I-e wh +4%,+ew

..y . - - + ..s - * - - - -e  % .-m.~

- w' vP*-+ re -w a

? "'

7a'*** em

-_,, ]_

~

LIST OF REFERENCES - lii t

20. Anon., " Tide Tables High and Low Wacer predictions 1969, East Coast of North and South America," U.S. Depart-ment of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Survey, 1968.

21. Anon., " Preliminary Analysis of Surface Wind Field and Sea Level Pressures of Hurricane Camille (August, 1969)," U. S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Weather Bureau, Memorandum HUR 7-113, November, 1969.

22. Dames & Moore, Hurricane Storm Surge Model Computer Listing, Computer Programs EP34 and EP34S, ~

July 1973.

23. Anon., " Compilation of Computer Runs for Report Verifi-cation Study of Dames & Moore's Hurricane Storm '

Surge Model," Dames & Moore Publication, July, 1973.

24. Hicks, S. D., "On the Classification and Trends of Long Period Sea Lovel Series," National Ocean Survey, NOAA.

25. Anon., " Report of Model Tests to Determine Extreme Runup j at Florida Power Corporation, Crystal River Site,"

University of Florida, Department of Coastal and l Oceanographic Engineering, April, 1969. l l

I

! l t i I

mee . 4 vme. - - - e--we.w. -e- em%&,e . .-, aow.- mmehL a wk.bh_, e M AS M' # WY+

APPENDIX A '

CORRESPONDENCE

(

t.

t s

~ s.- ,e-m. ww ~wn-.. _~ - ,--m.e,. -

ma-- .- ... s . ---

., . - -- . - ,,- ,m,.,,

-,. :-;.. ~. _ - ~ . - . . . - . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - - x~~

~

2. - /5- 73 STIPUIATION Dames & Moore will furnish to the U.S. Atomic Energy Consnission a copy of the Hurricane Storm Surge Code if the Atomic Energy Commission will 3 stipulate it will be used only to verify the validity of the Code and that after they make checks necessary to make this determination, the copy of the listing will be returned to Dames & Moore and any material copied or constructed from this listing by the Atomic Energy Commission will be destroyed.

The Atomic Energy r e ission will not use the Code for any other purpose afterward.

\ ,

C ~

ch JL .

l

- _ _ ~ _ . _ _ _ _ . .*-- -

DEPARTMENT Oh* THE ARMY COASTAL ENGINEERING REsEARCH CENTER

@' CERRE-0C 5201 LITTLE FALLS ROAD N.W.

WASHINGTCN. D.C. 20016

~

16 February 1973 MDf0RANDUM FOR RECORD

SUBJECT:

Verification of Open Coast Math Models Developed by CZRC and Dames and Moore ~

1. It was concluded at the conference held on 15 February 1973 in which AEC, CERC, NWS, and Dames and Moore were represented that further verifi-cation should be carried out to check the validity of open coast storm surge models developed by CERC and Dames and Moore. It is suggested that the following historical hurricanes and traverse lines (computational lines) -

be adopted for carrying out the verification. .

a. Hurricane Caric (1961) Traverse lines perpendicular to the coast at Galveston and Freeport, Te;:as. A~ :'g ~

b. Hurricane of 3 October 1949 - Traverse lines perpendicular to the coast at Galveston and Freeport, Texas. ,g./ . ,, .

1

c. Hurricane Ione (1955) - Traverr.,e lines perpendicular i.o the coast 1

( at a point where water levels are available and at a position north of the storm center. This is an East coast storm.

d. Hurricane Camille (1969) - Verify tames and Moore's model by using the entire series of surface wind fields developed by Hydrometeorological Section. ,ac4 44 44 i _ . -

2. It is estimated that about three months of full time effort would be needed to complete such an investigation, particularly if both models are to be implemented for the verification analysis.

$&, t? O B. R. BODINE Hydraulic Engineer Research Division l

_ __ o _ _ _ - ___ 1

b

b. % A g'

r-

• +,

S UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION gpgg -Q

\

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20543 i ,, .

FEB 1-61973 Lt. Colonel Don S. McCoy Commander and Director U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center 5201 Little Falls Road N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20016 ATTN: Mr. R. Jachowski

Dear Lt. Colonel McCoy:

PROPRIETARY MATTER OF DAFES AND MOORE'S STORM SURGE MODEL It is herein requested that you treat .the material supplied by ,

Dames and Moore at the February 15, 1973 meeting on the Crystal I River Nuclear Power Plant site, Docket No. 50-302, as proprietary. 1 The material includes a copy of Dames and Moore's hurricane surge model and several computer runs.

Sincerely, 1 bb L . n Pedraulic Engineer Site Analysis Branch DAMES & MOORE l LOS ANGEL Es rtti 2 61973 VA* C TEB O DJL O DfM O V:i'T C,RMM O JRM O CH1 J L ;te [ WJA JCW D RC ,1 flFY Lj WRS RDS i i!i*'

GR O KHK JRK O Us Q RME JDC D A .

&N

lh fh s . a'

1. y 2 3,.i  ? $ %fa t - od 3 - 17 u y Y.)a)&.. .

(

esa '

Florida -

. . .o. . . . e. . .Pwr February 22, 1973 1

A DAMES & MOORE LOS ANGELgg Mr. A. Giambusso Deputy Director for '

Reactor Projects FEB 2 61973 Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Commission $ Baja gog a g Washington, D.C. 20545 DEN O WJA O Jcw O RC h NFY O WRS O RDS O DMS O

Subject:

Crystal River Unit #3 Nuclear Generating Plant EONb$c 0 "E8

?MMU bocket No. 50-302

Dear Mr. Giambusso:

This is to inform you of Florida Power Corporation's current position on the re-evaluation of the probable maximum hurricane (PMH) -surge height at the Crystal River Unit 3 Nuclear Plant. Meetings were held in Washington on February 2 and 15,1973, with members of your staff and consultants from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Coastal Engineering Research Center. At the February 15 meeting, our con-sultants, Dames and Moore, presented new information regarding their analysis and also submitted their Sieretofore proprietary) computer program for AEC/CERC verification and results of actual program runs to the AEC.

At meeting's end on February 15, we were advised by the AEC repre- I sentative that four (alternative) courses of action were possible for l resolution of the differences in predicted PMH surge height between '

the AEC and Florida Power Corporation:

1. Florida Power Corporation accept the AEC position of 33.4 feet.

2. AEC accept the Florida Power Corporation position of 29.6 feet.

3. Based on the February 15 meeting input by Dames and Moore, Florida Power docket a position of 32.1 feet with proposed AEC acceptance.

4. Delay the decision on surge height for six (6) months before AEC-CERC can coraplete review and assessment of Dames and Mocre work - with no indication to what the final design surge height would reach.

f i - -General Office 320: Th.ny-fourtn street soutn . P.o. sox i4042. St. Petersburg. Flonda 33733 813. 866-5151

_. -_ .__u___.. _ _ _ _

Mr. A. Giambusso February 22, 1973 We wish to inform you of our decision to remain with 29.6 feet (original design height was 24.5 feet) as a conservative PMH surge height and feel that su'ch a position is justifiably conservative based on the Dames and Moore work. We accept the alternative to have AEC-CERC evaluate the Dames and Moore efforts, but feel strongly that your six (6) month review schedule is inconsistent with the overall licensing schedule, possible backfitting of design and con-struction, and the high priority of AEC concern to resolve such issues.

s Our consultants, Dames and Moore, advise us that they can, in approximately sixty (60) days, both confirm computer program differences relating to surge height prediction as compared to the AEC-CERC program and calibrate their analysis based on actual hurricane data. We feel tTiat resolution of the surge .

be resolved within sixty (60) problem based to ninety on these (90) days. Wefacts wouldcan certainly request that AEC-CERC agree to this same schedule.

~

We ~are most anxious to resolve this matter at the earliest possible date so that risk to the licensing and overall project schedule for Crystal River Unit 3 is minimized. We trust that the appropriate action and schedule can and will be imposed by all for final resolution of this matter in sixty (60) to ninety (90) days.

( Very truly yours, J. . Rodger Asst. Vice President JTR/iw l

, ._ _ . _. _ . . -- - - - - ~ - -- --

- ~ ~ - m  : ~ ~~

_ . _ _ _ . - . _ _ . _ . _ _ ___ . . _ . m__. _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . . _ _

{E ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION CidTdS C: OUCCcIC m f m ,.

I A J * '

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20545

~~t MAR 0 51973 es c : .o sLIIn n: ' '

e Mr. Ron Noble i *( ; ; ..'- -

Dames & Moore 1100 Glendon Avenue gj,,,,.gjy,.!+il- ~

Suite 1000 gg Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Ron:

In accordance with our understanding of February 21, 1973 on the need for verification of your model for the Crystal River ,

Nuclear Power Plant hurricane surge estimate, I am sending you a copy of the CERC computer program deck, program listings, and miscellaneous documentation. The punched card deck consists of two subroutines for use with probable maximum hurricane (PMH) estimates, followed by 21 data decks for PMH wind profiles of varying radius for different coastal zones as follows:

a) 9 decks for zone A, 1, 2, h for radii varying from h to 66 nautical miles; i

b)5decksforzoneBandCforradiivaryingfrem6 to 30 nautical miles; c) 7 decks for zone 3 for radii varying frem 6 to 40 nautical miles.

The last group of cards in the box is the program and primary subroutines.

I will mail you copies of historical hurricane surge data that are available this week on Friday. I will furnish you copies of the remainder of the data as it becomes available.

L. G. Hulman, Senior Hydraulic Engineer Site Analysis Branch

Enclosure:

Asstated(Underseparatecover) cc: B. Buckley R. Jachowski, CERC s

.3. .- #.... .%,._%ww, _.v,..%

,. .g,, , , , , , _ .. __

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY COASTAL ENGINEERING RESEARCH CENTER 5201 LITTLE FALLS ROAD. N.W.

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20016 CEREN-DE 8 March 1973 Mr. L. G. Hulman U. S. Atomic Energy Commission '

Washington, D. C. 2052S

Dear Mr. Hulman:

As previously agreed regarding the review and evaluation of mathematical models of hurricane surge prediction, we are inclosing the data which we used to calculate storm surge resulting from Hurricane Camille. As agreed ~

one set of this data is to be forwarded to Dames 6 Moore for calibration and verification of their mathematical model.

The data for the other hurricane to be used in the verification of the models will be transmitted as it is compiled, Sincerely yours A -

Inc1 DON S. MCC0Y Hurr Camille data (dupe) Lieutenant Colone , CE Commander and Director i

l l

• <s-*- vouw m gee.m m

UNITED STATES i i

'

• ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION .

_ WASNINGTON, D.C. 20545 MAR 9 1973 Mr. Ron Noble Dames & Moore 1100 Glendon Avenue Suite 1000 Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Ron:

Enclosed is the material supplied by CERC on Hurricane Camille for your use in verifying storm surge models.

Sincerely.

s  %

, L . ulman, Senior Hydraulic Engineer Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing

Enclosure:

As stated

,g. , *## *I ga .; 1,N3::'23 .

• , \b 'b

,.,e .- ""

- C ,' I; '-

- .1

.5 -~ ~'

1

_ . _ _ , . . ~ . , . _ - ~ . .. -

-e- --

.-;_ ---e--- - - , , , -

- -- ~

_ _ _ _ . . m - . . - _.

MAR 12 1973 -

Docket No. 50-302 .

t .

Florida Power Corporation ATTNr Mr. J. T. Rodgers Assistant Vice President &

Nuclear Project Manager P. O. Box 14042 .

St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 Gentlemen: I .

On the basis of our continuing review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, we find that we need additional infor=ation to complete our evaluation. The specific information is listed in enclosures (1) and (2). Enclosure (1) details our position on hurricane protection based on available infor=ation and specifies additional information which we require to further evaluate the validity and applicability of the Dames and 9 };oore model to this application.

While the staff will objectively evaluate the additional information requested in enclosure (1), you are, of course, aware that this information cay or may not provide a reasonable basis for significantly revising our present assess =ent. That assessnent is that the plant should be designed to withstand a probable maximum hurricane (PMI) surge that produces a stillwater level of 33.4 feet mean low water (MI.W) compared to your present estirate of 29.6 feet IILU.

- As noted in your letter of February 22, 1973,.the facility has been designed to withstand a F151 surge that produces a stillwater icvel of only 24.5 f.eet IILU. This is well below current estinates by both Florida Power Corporation and the staff. Therefore, in order to complete our evaluation of the deoign adequacy of the plant in this area, we will require the additional information requestod in enclosure (2).

l i

..v ~~

n.- -n u- wm..y. g . .

Florida Power Corporation MAR 1 g 1973 Because of the potentially significant effect of these items on >

our licensing review schedule, we will need a co:npletely adequate response b~y May 11, 1973. Please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of your confirmation of the schedule or the dat.e you will be able to meet. If you cannot meet our specified date or if your reply is not fully responsive to cur requests it is highly likely that the overall schedule for conpleting the licensing review for this project will require coupletion of the new assignment prior to returning to this project, tha extent of extension vill r.ost likely be greater than the extent of delay in your response.

Please contact us if you have any questions regarding the enclosed ~

requests.

Sincerely, Crf:inal Signcd by

& C. DeYous:

R. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Pressurized Water Reactors Directorate of Licensing

Enclosures:

DISTRIBUTION

. (1) and (2) Requests for Additional AEC PDR Information Local PDR Docket File cc: S. A. Brandimore RP Reading

. Vice President & PWR-4 Reading General Counsel SHanauer P. O. Box 14042 RSBoyd St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 RCDeYoung DSkovhole ~

FSchroeder RRMaccary j DKnuth RTedesco HDennen PWR Branch Chiefs RWKlecker t OGC R0 (3)

. BCBuckley EIGoulbourne - 2 omer > PWR-4 *C PWR 4 L: s [

,,D:S l

f#

sunnwr, 449Eklgy,thnf....ASc.4.

8

,r n@/ /

RC,,,,You,t}g,,,,,, ,}{U.ton , n// . _ ,

emir > 3 LI... . .. . ../' . 3 L. .../.7.3m . 3/ ..O,*. ./,?.3., ,,; ,,,,,,,,,,. , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Ferve Af f".Ha gitev. Olh AECM nHo r ... .e s-to-sieae o ses ofe

- . - - ~, . . . . . -. -, e .~. , ,.c n,w .

v-.-. _.... .- -. . .- - . ~_

ENCLOSURE (1) e-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION DOCKET NO. 50-302 You have requested an evaluation and approval of a hurricane surge =odel, which differs in certain significant aspects from that used by the staff in previous reviews. Your Amendment 23 response to previous questions

. on hurricane protection and the information provided at the February 15, 1973 meeting about your model is not sufficient to justify an approval of your'model or a departure from che use of our model. We and our consultant believe that. a stillwater level of 33.4 ft. MLW (compared to your estimate of 29.6 f t. MLW) should be adopted .for the site, unless the information requested below relating to your model proves conclusively that it is at least as capable of reproducing historical hurricane surge -

hydrographs as our model. Our esti=ated level is based on HUR 7-97 storm parameters of a large radius to maximum vinds of 24 nautical =11es, high speed of translation. (20 knots), and includes a two foot stillwater level reduction for overland flooding between the coastline and the plant. To consider your model further, we will require:

1) a complete cathematical and theoretical description of the model;

2) your basis for the selection of significant input parameters and a discussion of their degree of conservatism, including bottom stress coefficients, wind stress coefficients, and any other calibration ,

coef ficients; '

3) a comprehensive verification of the model and its paracaters by a comparison with the recorded surge hydrographs and peak water levels using recorded wind field and pressure data for at least the

'. following storms:

a) hurricane Carla (1961) surge hydrographs at Galveston and Freepart, (f .

"' as ;

ds ..

b) "the October 3,1949 hurricane surge hydrographs at Galveston and 1 Freeport, Texas; . I c) hurricane Ione (1955) at a location north of where the storm crossed the East Coast; i

d) Hurricane Ca= mille (1969) peak water level on the Gulf Coast;

4) an explanation and analysis of the principal differences between your I maximum surge for Crystal River and the staff's estimate. i

<w e v e-r.~e+w- e y ysev -

ye ,W

5) We disagree with the basic application of your model to the PMH surge level and, therefore, the coincident wind wave activity at the site.

The following are the areas of disagreement, or areas for which insufficient information has been provided, and for which either a revised estimate or substantiation of your position should be provided, a) The ambient tide conditions during which'a PMH is assu=ed include both a high spring tide, and what is generally termed an initial rise, The ' initial rise is considered to be a sea level anomaly, and is estimated b,y comparing recorded and predicted tides. Based on several years of record at local Gulf Coast tide stations, an initial rise of 0.6 feet should be assumed for the site. This

~

condition is not considered a function of meteorological factors .

which could cause a EdH, such as indicated on page 7 of your Appendix 2c, but'rather to other causes as are generally observed in tide records. Provide a revised surge estimate including the above consideration.

b) Hurricane wind speed adjustments, when the storm is approaching closely to shore, are discussed in the memoranda EUR 7-97 (which was prepared by the Hydrometeorological Branch of the Weather Bureau - now Naticnal Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and your Appendix 20. However, surface wind speed reductions at two miles offshore would produce more conservative surge estimates than would the selected three mile value and should be included in a revised surge estimate. If reference can be made, however, to documented evidence that wind speed reductions can be assumed further offshore, this less conservative assumption would be accept able.

c) No water surface frictional estimates are presented. Based on the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center publication, Technical Memorandum 35, however, it has been found that surface

. friction should be assumed to vary with wind speed. Your assump-gions should be presented, and if different than the referenced publication, they should be substantiated.

d) For each safety-related structure, system, and component ' identified necessary for plant protection (see Request 2.16), and based on both a stillwater level-of 33.4 f t. MLW and your fully verified stillwater elevation estimate, provide tabulations of the height of die most significant (average of the highest one-third) and the maximum (1 percent) waves, or the breaking waves (whichever is the most severe) and the associated runup for each case.

le) Discuss the applicability of your hydraulic model studies for estimating runup on and over the soil-cement protected embankment and on interior facilities for both water levels and wave conditions discussed herein.

, , . , .- ,, . ., ,,,. , .n

, - - - . - -. - -- - - - " ' ^~^^

Enclosure (2)

REQUEST 70R ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FLORIDA POWER CDRPORATION DOCKET }D . 50-302

'2.0 SITE AND ENVIRONMENT 2.15 Section 2.4.2, modified by Amendment 23, indicates that the facility will be allowed to operate for hurricanes less severe than the probable maximum hurricane (PMH), but that the plant will be shutdown for more severe hurricanes up to and including the PMM. Provide the following information for events less severe than the PMH for which operation will be allowed in sufficient detail to allow an independent review to be made of the adequacy of your facilities and operating plans: ~

4.15.1 Describe the limiting, hurricane-induced conditions of water level, wave action, etc., and their bases, for which cold shutdown will be

' undertaken. Include assurances that sufficient time will be available to complete cold shutdown before hurricane levels become critical.

2.15.2 Provide a cornitment to a technical specification for cold shutdown of i the plant based on 2.15.1 above, and include a discussion of the emergency procedures that will be required to protect the safety-related structures, systems, and components required for maintenance of shutdown for hurricane conditions up to and including those caused by a PMH.

2.15.3 Identify those safety-related structures, systems, and components necessary for safe operation (see Safety Guide 29). Compare the i conditions identified in Request 2.15.1 above with the design bases and general adequacy of each such facility to perform its required function, and indicate any action required to assure functionality for hurricane conditions up to those requiring shutdown.

! 2.16 ;For hurricane conditions more severe than those for which operation would be allowed, up to and including PMH conditions that both you and the staff have estimated, identify all those safety-related structures, systems, and components necessary to assure maintenance of shutdown conditions. Discuss the ability of each structure, i

system,' and component to withstand both the static and dynamic consequences of hurricanes up to and including those of PMH severity for both stillwater level estimates . .

.2.16.1 Provide Lassurance that failures of Units 1 and 2, or any other non-safety structures, systems or components, in the event of severe hurricanes will not,1= pair the functionality of safety related equipment required

.for safe shutdown of Unit 3.

1 l

l 1

( l t

u. .

, ,, . -. a . .- -n -.

~~

~-

- a- -

re ~- - m -

-m -- l

2 2.17 Provide the minimm submergence levels for both circulating and service water pumps.

2.18 We understand that the soil-cement protected embankment is required to maintain the functionality of safety-related facilities during hurricane conditions. ' Substantiate its ability to withstand the static and dynamic consequences of water level and frontal wave action for both PMH esticates. Documentation may consist of reference to other coastal facilities which have experienced conditions similar to those postulated for the Crystal River site, to full scale hydraulic model studies, or to analytical studies of static and dynamic forces. Also discuss the ability of the protection and the embankment

- to withstand wave overtopping. If the embankment is not required for hurricane protection, provide your assumptions of its failure during ,

such events and the 'consequences of failure on required safety-related f acilities .

2.19 Provide substantiated assurance of the ability of safety-related structures, systems, and components necessary for safe operation, and those required for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof, to withstand rainfall and spray; either associated with severe hurricanes, or independently thereof. For instance, discuss the ability of site drainage, including the roofs of safety-related structures and exterior penetrations, to cafely store or pass runoff without a loss of function.

..s.-y.  % w ee-ws,< - -n** <*m+-N== * - * - -**~- m. - " * ~ - ~ ~ ' ' ' ^ - -

- . - - - .- ~ - - . . - - . - .-. -

Parch 22,1973 Mr. R. C. DeYoung Assistant Director for Pressurized Water Paactors-Directorate of Licensing L'nited Statas Atomi' cEnergy Comedssion Washington, DC 20545 SLBJECT: FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION -

CRYSTAL RIVER HUCLEAR GENERATING PLANT DOCKET NO. 50-302

Dear Hr. DeYoung:

This letter is to respond to your letter of March 12, 1973, cencerning hurHeane protection for the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant during a probable maximum hurricane (PHM). We appreciate the timeliness and definition of your requirements for msolution of this issue as stated in your March 12 letter.

Since our meeting with the AEC staff on February 15,1973, and our letter to Mr. Giambasso on February 22,1973, we have been working continuously on preparation of the technical information necessary to resolve the PMi surge height and to descHbe the necessary plant protection. During the last several days there has been a great deal of dialogue between your staff, our consul- -

tants and us regarding inforestina exchange. We have been assund that input data in digitized fem descHbing the vaHous hurHeane-and respectig tidal surge hydrographs outlined in Enclosure (1) )

Question 37 of your March 12 letter will be released by the AEC no 1 later than the following dates ,

~ l

a. Hurricane Carla (1961) - March 30,1973 '

b. October 3,1949 hurHeane - April 3,1973

~

c. Hurricane Ione (1955) - April 3,1973

d. Hurricane Camille (1969) - already released Cur entire effort is centaring around calibration of our analytical rcdel with these four starb and represents the most time consuming activity on the schedule in this area. Frankly, earlier discussions indicated a :::uch quickar interchange of this is:portant data. On analysis of this input schedule from your staff, our submittal date in

, response to your Parch 12, 1973 letter will be .%y 22,1973. On that l data we intend ta submit a complete msponse and plan to meet with your staff to brief them on the substance of our submittal.

. , - - . . . ~ . , - . .

__ _e

_ - --. l

Mr. R. C. DeYoung P. arch 22,1973 We very much appreciate the able and continuing assistance of Mr. Schwencer and his staff in a cooperative effort to resolve the hurricane issue for Crystal River.

Very truly yours, J. T. Rodgers Assistant Vice President JTR/ns 9

e

- - - - -- *- - -.. _...- .. _ . , . . . _ . . . _ s_ , , . , , , , _ ,, _

. . . - . . - ~

h ,

uservan STATER S'

ATOMIC DGERGY COMMISSION wasumesvese mA seem W 2 3 573

,l .

nr. == w .

. Desmes & = core 1

Suite 1000 -

1100 Glenden Avnems .

Los Angeles, California 900@

i s

Dear Eca:

Usuler separate cover I am sending you ecpies today of the data supplied by QDtc for 7turricane Carla. There are no W cards presently availahte. for this stom, but-the information supplied will allow you to prepare your own cards. I suggest ,

you consider verification at Sabine Pass and Gniveston. I en attempting to resolve with G RC the'questices you supplied on k rricane Camille data by telecopier on March 22, 1973, and will respond as soon as possible. '

l I

L. . m1==n, Seni IIydraulic -

Engineer -

, Site Analysis !! ranch

• h insnes: ,

Under separate cover '

cc: E. Buckley R. Jochowski, CEBC -

\

j - _,

i , . . .- ,

DAMES'& MOORE um eidets.s t

i i MA6 2 619/3 1

i

.% VAs r ' 5 11. r C.a - .i

! wr< rau.

{ . e Ccf; . .?.11n can N;- - (.

hn ' . ? T. ;G , ' VJ :C ;'

~ W'.

a 0.1% tQ. ."

ume o .w _

. 7 l ._ ._ . i., . u - . - - - : -

-- - ~ ~~

.) ' ~ ~

.N ~~

.. .]

, < . ,c 3 . , q U n. Jery }{longq _;.73 73

"#~"

QUESTIONS CONCERNING CERC'S DIGITIZED DATA FOR CAMILLE x o a. a r*p 7 e /,,. , . , / 3gg ' M:'j o' -

. rev s r-Transmitted herewith is our computer output listing the data furnished to us by CERC for Hurricane Camille. This output represents the basic data of the storm which may be easily obtained from the information furnished us. The explanation of the output is included on the output sheets.

Referring to CERC's program listing (statement 300 + 3), the digitized storm data should have the following format: ,

WWX(LL+1) ,WWX(LL) ,WWY (LL+1) ,WWY (LL) , S A(N) , SP (LL+1) , SP (LL) ,WK (LL) where LL refers to the reach number and varies from 1 to LM - 1.

WWX =2W cos 0 (statement 150 + 1)

WWY =2W sin 9 (statement 150 + 2) 9 = Wind vector angle position counter-clockwise from positive l

1 x-axis SA = Astronomical tide (assumed constant for Camille)

SP = Inverse pressure effect, ft. (statement 130 - 2) and WK = Wind stress' coefficient (statement 160-2)

It is clear that the wind velocity and the angle (Theta) may be obtained from the first four data entries of the input cards. Also, since PN, PO and R are known from other input data (read statement 23 + 1), the parameter RHO may 1

be calculated using the listed SP data. The listed values of WK are thus  !

l redundant in that this parameter is only a function of the wind velocity (see I statement 160 - 2). Hence the wind velocity for the first 13 reaches may also 1

l

Page 2 be calculated from the listed WK values. For the following questions please refer to the attached output sheets (the validity of our conversion program has been checked by hand calculations of the furnished digitized data).

1. Refer to the first 6 time step outputs. It appears that the wind velocity calculated using WK(LL) is not synchronized with the velocity obtained using WX(LL) and WY(LL). This discrepancy is  ;

apparently explained if the wind stress coefficient format vns j really WK(LL + 1).

2. The wind velocity distribution along the traverse should have one of the following trends depending on the relative position of the

, hurricane: (a) monitonically decrease in magnitude, (b) monitonically increase and then decrease in magnitude or (c) monitonically increase in magnitude. Reference to the output shows this to be the case except for the first 1.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> time step. Here the U output is erratic while the UK output follows the predicted trend. Also, in this case, as well as in the case of the third 1.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> step, there is no apparent correlation.between the UK and U output, although (presumably) the wind stress coefficient was obtained from the wind velocity of the storm. Please explain this and the fact that this data is self-inconsistant. I expect that the original raw data was only available in 3 hour3.472222e-5 days <br />8.333333e-4 hours <br />4.960317e-6 weeks <br />1.1415e-6 months <br /> steps and someone did some' wild interpolation, thus explaining the inaccuracy of the first and third 1.5 hour5.787037e-5 days <br />0.00139 hours <br />8.267196e-6 weeks <br />1.9025e-6 months <br /> data.

/

f . . _. . , . _ _

- , . . , . _ _ . . . . . _ . . . . ~ _ . _ . _ . . . . _ . .

Page 3

3. The maximum indicated wind velocity is 127.8 mph corresponding with other input data '(read statement 16). Hence it would appear that the track of Camille relative to the traverse line should be such that the minimum radial distance, RHO, would be slightly less, or at most equal to the radius of maximum winds R. Reference to the output data reveals that the minimum value of RHO is about 23 nautical miles, whereas R is given as 14 nautical miles. This discrepancy is ,

possible in one of the following ways: (a) the digitized values of l

SP are too small or (b) the maximum wind velocity of Camille is actually greater than 127.8 mph. However, using the furnished  ;

latitude (30* N) 'and the supplied meteorological data in accordance with appropriate equations listed in HUR 7-97 it would appear that if Camille were assumed to be a PMH (as far as the K constant is concerned) l then the maximum wind velocity should be about 124 mph. Thus it appearn more likely that the SP values are too small. Please explain this l issue.

l Finally, we would like a verification that the referenced digitized data for Camille (in the exact form sent to us) was used in CERC's calibration of their '

program, that no observed hydrograph exists for any station on the specified traverse and that only peak surge was used for calibration. Further, we would like a stipulation of the value used in CERC's calibration of the peak surge and its time of occurrence relative to time listed in the Camille data.

Regards. ,

• • 4,wt James A. Hendrickson Dames & Moore

,,--as -%.,--

e ev -w+ -emac k -w-4+*----at-* "P- %

J T. - -

^M"***W**' * * ' Y~ " - ' ' #-? D *' ' F"#

. ()

>

, $. ) .)"' ,

3

.~,

.:. ..., . .>- ) 3>

g) :. , , j

?

~nm .'

F!orida -

Power

• • "*""'aa March 28, 1973 Mr. R. C. DeYoung' ~

-Assistant Directon for Pressurized Water Reactors Directorate of Licensing U.S. Atomic Energy Commission '

Washington, D.C. 20545

Subject:

Florida Power Corporation

. Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant Docket No. 50-302

Dear Mr. DeYoung:

i This .= a supplement to our letter of March 22, 1973, regarding

, hurrn. ..e protection for the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Plant during a probable maximum hurricane (PMH). Since the March 22 sub-mittal date, information exchanges have continued between your staff, our consultant (Dames & Moore), and Florida Power. It is necessary that we advise you of delays beyond May 22, 1973, in submittal of our response to the hurricane questions in your letter of March 12, 1973.

The items preventi.ng us from meeting the May 22, 1973 schedule are:

1. Previous schedule provided us by your staff for release of hurricane data in digitized form was as follows:

a. Hurricane Carla .(1961) - already released.

b. October 3,1949 hurricane - April 6,1973

c. Hurricane Ione (1955) - April 6,1973

d. Hurricane Camille (1969) - already released -

It is now discovered through receipt of the Hurricane Carla data and communication today with your staff, that the data in items a, b, and c above are not available in digitized form. Our assessment of schedule indicates an approximate six (6) week delay in schedule to digitize the 4 -

data. As se understand from your staff, AEC and CERC will now proceed in the immediate future to digitize this same data for use in the AEC-CERC model runs necessary for conclusions to be reached.

il t

8' General Office 320: Tn.rty-rourtn sueet sau:n . P.O. Box 14o42. S;. Pctersburg. Florida 33733 e 813-E 6 sI58

~

P

, ., * ' 1 5

/ '

u. \,.

- \ ~; *'" _. .ja ui v'M..&

w*..

< \ p. , } ,

s.. . .

0 N

% . ,. , f . ~\

.f....,.J.,~-y';1.\-- .

.o

. .: _.._ - 3} l . 'f'~~~

' u )* /

N.g

-c;..... s..

- -Q \. / / . a

\

\

R..7dr- ,s s

q g,

~

o- .,9

~

~ r. w. f. s 'g g 5, t ,

g:'.

97 K '[ J I

I .

. %. j;. 4. g x Og sS \xs l l

bi' il

.,,.,3~;,-i.i.Afp,3.c//N!%. i i  ;

i s M ;s ~ }8 M3t

/

. a/.

3 5 O: -

i1 I lif L

i.

./'. .ky,./ . , l .

.g , \ =m , -

t g;i

%' p*' i '

l j

.o...%.._ - M/ ! !,/ 1

,M. A 'l 1 l

/' P g\ ' i JU

! - 4' Q'\,'i1,(./Ms'..Ylff\l./

/\ I i

i

! I I"i 4

n. . t,

\:is' N

\. ~

• I / / f /I i .

jl, ji

/ N ! ' ' ) l l h i

[ ;l \ b [ v, g . / . f m I #--H k m

/l

, *_3 i ,,,,1i

. fr ! j 9 ' .~>- .

s

< s =. , ,, ,'

u Q p .

/,/- .

\ n.

% 4

,,6haIE I- .

4. . ; ~f I -- - a l

.a s'

T' ~ - 1

. J .i" j -

_ _._ 20G ,w i

/ ' - p u< < 9:e . u s. ,

.f* '* .s l*

.'f'f m -- a 9 m l

I

• h?n/owi l :c Ri o

~, -f T,,,W

- i g,

.~

=

1 Is *z' A t gy-

,l. -

I -a u '

' ~

I p ,.4*" y m.W'$

..---w* ,,p M* *# . . ~ - - '

i e

e ' ,, 3

.,,  : (

~ N ~~~~r; 1

}'k

! \'7, .:

~ rl-' ~ '!

~

s {

NY g i c . ..

Tg (\ _._ t s

~ 'h ~~ L t k '~~~ ~.

. t

, \ A

' . f. }. ' 4 -- n .f . . - f ','

ii, .

\ , ._

'b .., .. e ..,

...- ..~

- ~ ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~v h i. v 9.t ._ . i ' ~ ,\ -

4 :1s, 2

, ~

[ s  :, r{

c. fd , 4.

a 8** ' '

Q a%"

- h~ -

=

,1 4

\

p- --kl-),-];1%mr = ~ n a~ gee ll.-

i3->'ef =<3' qc5X~~ s%- - - -

l. 'A . R. ,< %

-sof *

,_ .. s s , *

s**-_ c . ,_ \'_f * ,-.

'? m- s .rs . .i

_I --

'f I i',.

k

~. '.4 ';. ,*

• '\ \ *I / 1(

i i s '

,i p-

\ ,z -A )J .$ j

. c*: /

-b

\

's ,' ~ \

l,

}- Lg .S ."/'.y' g a,p hp ' i j /<-

/s ~~[ /

s' l

I y 3,

' /

T i .

4(. 's . ' ' ' ~ '

y V. -7t,'

V 9j

}f 3

' \

v, N ..g n j[ / [/ / ~

., mD s N '/

.p 7 e e- ,

y \__N /

'l- jfi ,

i[. ; _

\

N 2*.- --

/

1 5 -

'f

\ {els .

g_ - f I

- - ~ "

'~~ ~ ~ __ ,;. .-

g

. __. y._ _ g < g _

t unatcA8 cARtA ~

~

~~

SugfACE esos -

C-MT

^"SEPI U'S g'ggygTORE LSOVEL **" ~ ~ .

. r 3- #

h* _f; , ~Y 1

'T l

1 '

,,, - - L -

{ I  ?>

) , _;l -l ----[ s\ j(~)('~\ c- d, h....- '

~-

g' ' -

O e

r-

_q,w %s /6 g..W -

^ OM '

h

.i .  ! T  !

o j ,, '*f l  ; i

, i p,%ip 1 + l'i ~ ~ a, i i , l L k k'  !

$:2 x a 10' f [0-

. :r- s:

\

- o..

3'

<,7 t,'

DTk _ bl\

x fk\\\ '

\

lWk; .

,r A.-

"\ ,

l :P

/ __Ad ayp/. / I w\-sy\,\\s\

\'\xgy ml\ x\ s f'*

f ~ +  ! \!\ I i . 5 m ; ng l i, Q, $ % \ s' ' y ,

,s m,, m t ,rgf ,, /0 ~ ;n'i s x Q_ s . .

i .

r ,

s sr- _' i > l.M,!;!

_/

d.r. ' " ' Q ,

L ' s _ ,J

~

I k pn M' f5; 1 'g +s,'j >-h -t

~l. i14' r

l l:.p;: ==

l i.,

fthg\\ s /< - - -  ; ,

l3. <

f i :Wd(

l

',,'- i ,- - '8 .

,, h ,.. ,N i

s, k ~s/ s i'. *, f

% 4 1 ce t -

4 I

- QL . z;t 8 O

<gg <

?r '- -

.<b' '

k.' ~

'.g *] 8 g h r , ,,t >, -

/ -

- zg$m - tuI" .

4/ '-

./ 2

$<2=d8 id ~  !

t t' , ,($3g$g

• Q

,_ s, l .

' - ~

./

%. / , . .-

..,v . ,w..-. .

_w

,,'hs e . . > t i p ,;$

% nw . ,, ; i h \ >

1 1, \ gi L \

vi i...sp

- . %%s s u.. .&. 1 e ,

I h

t.

\

.av.9- \

c I 9'*2 -

W:_ _ .N*o.g ' 'l-s i I

c.

1. - - - rqy , g ,i i , ci pgga , u, .

,. t!'ix, t T i ..

's s s .

N 3l[,';,/ / /.  !,

\+ s

-ig-

.,.,,,, '( \ \ ,

5#'

D , 4 - - 4, e -

/ /

l s

\

s

C.,

g

, x\ p gx

. ;yJ p(p u; ) * \

.. n ,

\

i

~

l I

y,' \ ..

f) ,, .

l

(

[ si , ,

m c,A y w' ; j i

.. / i i i

, - g

.< , ,' ,.b p p \ \' . .___A ' .} '

. v--

l

'; -n ,e7m( g .._.___p

. ,s

-A

, s..,.

I

. i p ;6psy wu s ts, w

' . w i

! i.

j,- n.ew. lT~e A - 's r-,

.r, _ .

. .)._u , ,

,. ,,..._e' w, ., . g. _c_ u t..-

-l-A.-,.t uj 1 f*,

a<

-g 1

o p

,y p

_. . o. **.

.i I i-g A a

-  %@28 . z , M>

s tz ,

,- ts 4 n ,; u<So" om a i

.. , .. . .e r,. ,

, 9 3z .z L5s po !a . ,,., ,

I -

,,,a - - <

~ ~ _ ,f

.. , n, . ,,, s. ,

{ \i{: \ {l t \\;.

1' * \  ;

_. y._

.- _ , . ;i '\\ .i {~

~

~

, ,4.fg4 .

5- ,

r. ~

.  : )'5:. - .

1 4

o

~ _

.T , /-

/t , ,

/ 4

. . ~

,'ld :4 1,ie ; N.

' -  ; ,1 -

~

- - - - - ~ .

7 C .

-}g . .

~ /

!E

[t jt-

e. - - -

n,,.: g. .((E . __- __.- -

4

/' . _ ,-

g. - .

q\

,tp fWN d

/

C d. s

_$g 1 l) t k k _. - _..-

's /

.e e' -

fD. .- - '

/

+ . -  ;

. Q-I, t , I}, -

3'[ ' h . .

]fe b, _

7. '

W* ,

i>

' - ' /{ ._

7 h. - . - - .-

4 4?

d' 1

I

' ~

\

(-

wI p .

g

,,,~, v. ,I' e.4 , /::-= /

P' : 'l

/ .

k n - .

\

s

s. I  ;

d- s \.

• y,i ws __

~ I . e .

J j'x,M t_ .

/

.s _

? .

'f.- /, /_.. f J/ , - ttI

{m -

__.\,

_ t\-

Ie

, 1

~ . ._ y ., e. -7 f -

I _

,a r-)t_K*%y<..i,.[

. " . "f 9 \

,[*

,. . , .~h. , ,~ " _

,\

T_~ Yi .

%rw 0*

r ., l o-j;;_.

~

,cI, g s g.

gi >

% 3 T,

' i x 2 2 .

2 _. - ,

2 y  % ' _ T e

_i .

.ld (1 ,

A M n I

- . . 3Q bf f LS RD G A40 u

^l E

\-@ " E_

,I

. Clt0 W9 a v

• t

,b; 0, u w :< ' -

- h

)_ .

e.g NE1C6rc o E A 9'i

\ . - [t - . \.'5 w cy CFA 1.a F

- I-*

Myt I

R RLL  !'

~*

g-1

\

S RU .

t n

l' g

P g nHUST# 1}

E f _; S 2 -

Il, .

7 __

_. ~ [ Aw -

3 4 g

? 1!!: . i!

3qn ,3\\ \

ii { I

, , * * = " " ' ' ~

__ _ ,p e>M

, f

.- s ', 1 c.,, .

i

,** a. i I I

t v

pl4 ?':>-

. ,,/ , \ i g * .

• o I s

s b - .

k ;'r_, ~ f % :-f v:(~~/ ,

s if

.._....: __.-.. -- ri!

",' s ,_\ \

1

___ Sv__' 'a , i '. ,

';'g ': rs ,; , \ ' \ , .

.. , \ h

' , ., ._s g ,,,/ s

',. r, k

b L .

(,

m. i g

t~ x ._ 4 j s , 1 ,s

\ s

_a j If w*lerc

, s .

' p,./p', .s xs e

\

i

s. s*

, .f.

s j s n\Y -

___ p

'/, ' '

g 3 .. m.. a[' ,, ' i ' ',

g' y '

.l ,

~

a,/ s,,,.

y;

,*s p

's \ .' ' '

y

_3_,.4 f%,4 ; Y: g A_.~.,,'7,~ . s b

s s , k ,

s l' i _- +

's ' 1 s

( "' z .'!').,4', K~ \

s

~

-(\ h M.

'g d ,,'. f t .,,

s.,

1 s- e !. ,

t l I j r. 4,. &,,,p.e : ? , m,

• gis ', 's lM.. '

e ,

t',

,^

h vM.4 y ,

... i

~'2 pV '\N gsi ^~ l ,I i .D.

nK 'I , /

!'$g . G h,\'*\ ,,'P,, f s 's //

g 1

'M *5

..... M5.Vf y p[h/ [

,, j .

I M j.

, - ~ d ~~~j 1

'.. .. & L_.)

'.' l' , ; f' N0ag L i //,*'\,

- /'

p f

i s

,#, W< m&

i e 4 Sm' t ., J g:::nd$

/ 2*

.i la

. e r up .> ,

, D,E I _a

,j g, o m o ,,,

/

• • • ~ z s

fl -

s.

. , , a), >

k . h '

vgE

..*,.W-w, -m,-- <w,.. .,p=

. _ ye s,w

, -e,w+=a.ww.- -- weerew w wg >=+e=

m. a ,,

___m -m

-n m

I

,Y Y l

.- e. , ,e .

i l '

g g.(- - .... . [g h ! _

t 9 .. !

s  ;

?p , N y m% L 4 A , 1 Ln[ll r l _

r- -

g-- 3j i i; i  : '

)

i ,

e,'e,,yi .

I t J l s, ;

e ,. s. g 1 g

i >x

1. \

s N e-- .

J-Q 1 ] ? ,i \n \ \ \ \, k

! %.y , x y i N xi i y, }'Wp-y-<M

,6 g

ps '

eN\ x s sQs i

l i s!

• 4 i;

nly l

s-s N ', s s

y ,

l N1p- ' N,- s hx s ' if;'! I e)1;/;...ei. m,,^ [. , p % %

l '

.,. ; hs,'8' 'i li l

1 , m} '

- t

.-n

?l, k.

I ~? i 6 %.') \l y.w, j nll,. ,.. 1, I

3 p= ,

. u

'g.', % . _,,  ?

' '/ h ,!

__ {

I .., ,..- i ':

Y', < g si

-l-l

.Yd,*a [4 0 e8o E k4 w'-

/6j!,ly

. =

i;

• n -

y'q se -

/i~

• y t cm gm ,g,og ,'"

wo .

Ne wmo

• Z s, r**f 4 i

' ~~---- 1.e_1 c ,

s , ,

WINV M*R .

I t ]B n

'""M-N"* * - ' ' vipe s ai, g o. . , ,

e%

,a

.fm u g -

i.

3 a

s.

>o... ,en s i

1 J ,

s W. i. ., o l \ t i

g

. Mtv. /> I p' ' p,s 'J

- s i ),,3 ,,

i.#,,'*j s 1

... Vi[Q I.:

j' 1 \; s.

i > .

.{ .,l'~T,

([_Es ,

s .

>,[ ;w'l's \b 'x. c

, p /

,,1.7 / m' w ~ 'w . i

p. .

-c v,,. -

r h

-/ff Ne',(ylg!  ;,,A;;

i ~' -

,p.l'

? , -s s. g:' 'i ; J

._t - -. l

_ --- Z ---'---~l f

'_,i

~ ~[

s v.

. 'igf.,gj' \'! s

'{.t_fg__~

y _t /1 i

s g2 4g .

4 1 . .__ . .T_..-!..,,] I

'** 7 ,_ . -

_-- ,,s i'

, 38 r v. _ . , . ., j ',t ;t y-

/'

j ,,'.g, -

• \

t ._ -

15- l

,,;f 0 '\/ y ' ' .ei , s i; I e I , s 1 -ii..

' , i -

/ '

{

ll- f..,-__..!,,,_s, ? i _L

'* ! .) ,

J

. ei m_! I ~[ ,/'

4 E y' p ~~~ .

i 9,; ..

j i

i.?

t -

(

% 5, 8 .i  !#8

, . 6~s81  ?,2 A l' .

f

<~%' .$ % f*

z 3ly.

.m l ~- g " ,Y"' <

l

/

i' %go :ftd

?f,g w Wg2)in or- i :> o

-1.,-.___.' , l,W ,

5 O u.

! s *5

,.. N, j 4 m -- ,,

s.

~m.,,.., ,

.$ s a

~

yn ,

,p.W4d'-**'- '

-P '

k

i iI

.fg, i t -

l!  :. - - <. '

L .a f!!gj' c- - - .

.ldrf

- _ ~

j

g. l ;t' .

~

i g

l ,

'\. (

f

\W- @M W -

p

/ _

^c.?

• ?.

- (r1 s.r - _

T-

'- 4

.=

I%yI . -

I ' .

f' _

i b

- ys -

.. ..-:  ; ^

9 Ye

'. i .

v . -

/ ,'

_ 4

\

- ~ =

ig#,I ,~'j,,j,'q,\

't' ,

',,r.e

,3

- ~

y(-

_ d .

I i -

T \

L, tl ' r - ;-

' s, j ,#

g

- _ o, 1 .

~

F l.

l l

+

~

~

r_ ,

f _,

. jM l

? - -

4 _ -

~ -

F - ', i L

l>

y,i ]. Ij

(

~

l T.

L L

i J

c.

s o

c e

i

. . i j ,.

T E 1,jf t,, N' 2 ' --. -

A M R

1. - .. . U RD G T" LLS

- AN 0 A .

)_ -

r

~

N _ CI 0 V

%[l 1

- R y

t". '

E n i

MNE1W2 A C6 9

, o.C NU

. f CA 1,S I IRIEILF" F

h' R O M/[ M

- 2 t 2

f  ? RU .V .

USTOE

~

s' t

' H P S L

,= - EIG S

\'s

- N

+-

~ A Il- -

" C (

~

.: 2 .

)

p 4 @pg -

c

)

Egc%C2 E=

(

2b p 5

,i .f: } . i! ? ! I 1 l

,3

e.r. u* g.ee.A memet - N A. Sum 4 * & ew.e.ge md e 4 - . + = = = * -.-

• 6 mwee m M emmewN.weg _a rs ee.e9 mhe h, AV 4 W mW+--

O 9

e, p, w

,e

• N ., ' , ,7 ,

h,

. .. 3 ; . . ,

' S Y / -\!

a ,

r as: i i  %

.._ thlw .

'/ 4. - \ ' '

\ I';yq,I: l p ,r a ' m \;, \

Ne.- ~ v, sz 7P2'Wh['i,H  ?' ij.Eg -

t r ' s t.

g"

,p, y.

~- Ek- -

.\ ' \ \s .

.il \

. i 3 .. - - b 4

s ,

N 1 '

\ \ >

' -)sW'j'}:;p.-- ~~l h , ol Vm zi

\ ,4

/\ l .

'm / h, fa,; Os i:

\

V m l ---: d; ? i' A

y v, i.,

, 7 tf

.i 4

x,

't 4

2. # N e N /- - H ,:j s\i

\ \

j N!,!

['lk'[\

[' '

_ _ ,1 ,l f

i

"' s i ,

./,.  ;. .

s. , s > .

.  !!; ~

) *

---

.O.

s..

[

' , ;N , s % 'h

/ 's >

s, l 1 ,

j j rf, --

--.~.--1 s.

~-~~ ~

~

I

..\'1-tv"

); )N!g. V N t\

g s

I l

• T~

m not 6 \g I a sl

i. s -

, ./, g '

,J.A r - ' y w  ;

m'te ,g I l'fn'*, f %y

..'% yy8 y p. <'

j;il;g g

~/ i o=

l' ..i /  %'t .A m*W 2 'g'U [$

f f- .) ~ ./., 4 Z MV U>N ~~ e

/ / ,

2. ,-

i.

f w/ i N- hn.,,,,890zos ge meo% fa

• Z I '

l ** f lr 4 '** l

("s I ~--- hs I a

• k yppm I m:-:w.n_ym e, _

'-y n- - , - - - .,

.- .-; :-s .

_ = _ __ _

. - ~ ~ ~

l l

l h ~'--

~~

, .i z 'I

, ., j u i

~~-.l ~Il o;;;,M i l' V3.- / .,

,s mO-v,c .x .f l '

, ,, / v-l

• i .g ,,

~. . ,g ,. h,j. s3h5 f .

A f* ' ,I

.u pn ~~

I /**#, W l /I 9 ,, ' _I'l O. n >g . mZ f ,

., g

,e

, b, -

_ l ,, ,

sa he o,$ f I '~ , e

• ? l s ..  ;

.?maa>n =..,, 1

,7?'a-.  !,t; &v r ., *

e5 -

,~

i,.~ j .i .

ii 2 ,

'l 1I , yFi Qy, i ---l -

! I~

Nh,(,, s.. ',9,g s -

l

p. I

' 'l

s. - , f ' si s . ,e

./* l *

's ~-

h_

W .

ff

.! /

i- I \; W'g -.p,s>r e,,, .

J l,

r i  ;..

/NJ'/s 1

s si f

.i i .

f

\ \ l N ff ~,,A lc5-i ,

,j .

l  ; ,

f ti 's i g#

!./'  ; 'f '{ .;l pir % 7. c ..

=7 '

., s . s Z' .

Ti 7-i]w((af g< y ;s I,, x

,D i .

'\ 'N ,

i i l , -h f y,ai >

- b

- n /~~ .l. , ,_ ,,

'i / w q,,-e ,

- . . . -\i _ ., . ; e - -

.'...' z k

4 w_.-..-..-.'.._., l

/8 J : 4 ,e VIH FHB .

. T T p. gn .'*3  %

--~7..,.~... , , . , _ . . . ~ _ . _ . _ . . . _ . ,

s

,~

.(

.hj

. ..~-

D b ARIA

..- . . .. . - ..- y;-  :. '-

o- s. '

• ~ '

i* s,. ~,,. , "A _.

. /.

-. /. . 1-- - -  ; .

'. s

,/ g--

. .. f..s,,q, ;~,;.& .

I / r

u. q y M ie . ".; .

w/-",R.n. - ,-,

e i

L 4

s >

. i*?.

.-....)  ?

M. .

a. .  ; ,

h;.6-AM.e.s] ' - .

\

s .2

. .-v - y ,. ge. -

.s. .  ; i '

n.-f,l

, ,J 1 s; .__ 1

.L i ,

i. _.-.. -.r-- 'S--- . , s'/, y 7 - .y 3

- %, \ \ 'N : " f.

.llI t ,i l- ' .:

lij;

--.?...'.rsj,.!

-p

f. a; t,c s r\ .P .c.-l s s s /(, .. .

I

! l ~ 'j.

. .f

/

\ .

w . ,, ' g \,

. ' . ,l .

l i.

p. .

s .s -i s ,- j

_ gg8 .'

s.tx

- s m j

,.,  %...e. x ... (.  ;  ;

i f , v.

s.. s.

--s.. . . ,.~;%.. - . ... ~ . . t \. .-

._y .; i- f

... ., . \

o s. . .. a, t+, ,

s 1  :

/s ,

e

, -m

.[ . ,

g a

,e /',  ; 3.

• i

. .a 5 , ,=

, ^k' -

I'.

s W c. D  ;

. 4

_ s.

- /

e M V o.

'r z ,,,

F, um

' l

.s

• J ' .. .i _

52 x tt w_.mo ,,.,

<,,*. to

~  %, -s,~'

q'-!gl

• K*

"g'g3d,, J x &ng

')*h?gs ' ,

~j , j sr>

-J l *, Vee Z . ~* -i

' : $ 4 i

l l

,1 1* . .

.: ..=1 ,

1 -

.u.!

i e* .

e w sqp w ihmM em.--t1***M-"'

t..m.--. I--

. . = . - .- . . . - . .

e

(,f fdi aj

... ny ,. ,

-...~._.....-y,,

. -- n. . . . .

_..er,... ,  ; , s,

~ *-

,2

, t

~-AN. .%,W , , .-~

., .  ;,, u,,

t(# i*- ( ,gte,i n

, .. 6 ,,.

i

_J:9

_j jf*$f j'ljl l,

• b I i  %

f%.l.?"f,Y,j,',/li

~~ - -

, ,i , ,

v. ; -

,. . , i l ,'

,4 rf) 4' A\ r-

, ,'. (3 i -- I  ;-

's,.

..__ _, g , N -3f -

__.__ . f. _ j,

1.  ;

Q,i,', .,'ls ,s '>

j

':lI

,;g}'  :

,re,f --  ?{fr['sy;s',j', N 's i

j  ;

j ,

- j!-

f- ,T .7- s s,; , ! x ,l , .' .

)

Is r 1 I , I

$10:&"'\l'i;'gf'N, xf, #! ;.

^Y

~ F ~

s l

x ,  : '

--- - w

- s s v i- , .

i  % \ / -l n.s .

s 1, - !,

i /'f, /

l I ~ ._~tM l

, is*

,,y .. , / g

~

' -..; f *

' $  % g i f s['

r . g wI ,$ ri ' 2cp'~', ] ,,.

s. . v. ,

.. l ~~, 'nr

. . I I n

~w_ s. ,

,:. ., r, s . -.

I 1

.e. . ...> .

<o

.aa => y, ..;

4 i <a8 g ~ _a,.

"C,

/

- %% ~

,I ,,3[$8,g i

') ~ It

, i:$$$)Y , .A I e y- ,. - e.go u

.xl ,. s .,

• I 8

e i

I j ,,,, ~\.

'~

'A % g _a

• - o Bicy ,

%- la ~

• ~.!- l  ! l .. ,- .

o l

~

y,,- -

g *+.'gg,y wgy .s ~~~~_f 3 . , - , ,

Ah e as asse h.=Amece s4A ed.sw wh?--

e o

W.

c. m y, , y .

g] *

'd Y !NJ ,I d _

0 o

.r.' ~ %r Ob MIA

a,- . . *

. _ '. _ . ._ -f ,.

, ,j -

- . --.g.y,o . ._ ___..__ _.. _ g

$ +m A j __,r g W. ', '1/

s .

L

~

Y.Y

..,-,-_.-.y l.,',.

'. ? ' i '

. , , _..~_ , I ~.

w .\.  ! 8;.# tes. .

i ,

,  ! < j h il t t

a. .'s" ,h i

l -

.. ?*. . ,d s

lw !

.f0,',,'ii ,',' , 's E.j 's

, i,

• ', b j

l g.;*

'. a- ~f . n i

v x i ,s'e i '

%s

• 1 s i.

's e.fia,, f %

.. ll. l 4

' ,i

[?', s 1',~ ',, w

,i- i s

{ j l

j d ,- j

.f x,j, i

a i n,j 7.. i 1

' i '

i' l e l:

l

'[

--m'*' <~ \ r'"f..., A s;.: &,Ilt -

'j

.- 6 l

. ':- I :C e

'l,.r-j~ ._._!...'Qk.f,;.

}i~ L ~~n :

g. ' + J't.# -,%_ r. m

~ y- gp i *'s A,' A .%

M g

'Q " J. -

'J Q O 3 t-

"j j 2

• Ml-f-l 45 u[, ~~J

/I

~

a* '

, . 6sk-,F3>< a l i

i I ./ Z m":5 4 %.QIn

/l '

, (. u .' p t* :

3 a

2.

% s 3 O  ;

s, k r3 f E*5Sy' f , p.- ,, z.

~L 1 $2 .._.

A l 1

~

e

. ,l l

( '

e

. - + - - Ahme.= entw -=w- h am 4..meeeeewe = sum -- _ = -

--w.. ,aw.,g g.__ , . , ,_ .

^

NNid E .

Mild Mla

~  : nv , 1 . , .<.

• ~ - 4_ -..

-p/p f 4 .  : -

l , l j '\

l  %%h. 'f _- i . ' '. l \

! s ~M'E u. <.\ '

U..,

'I "lj 'k '

h[Tf:$$$'I7kjl-,,s '

.. l s l

? l:  ; y, ;

i -<,'

! ,L -

w; ,= .e:! ..

i y .

l . ,x : .

a.

-,/

!/

y

\ .s ', s 'N ' '

[

4-  :

p' :~s :, t. t 4., ,

s g,  ! J ,

p jpi.

J ,,, l "'cj;.3j'g . j p>

.  : f, v 1 ~ '

t

q!k

m. 8 + i t

,yr, l . ,~ 's

. ]1 ,

I . av f* , T*\

.. . l. ,.

, ~. ,a !

l s a\ .,

l

+ . . . .,

i i$' ,

3 Q r

E

• 4L e & LLs 13

- 2 5' Is >i

$mO og o

, < o 8 4 , 'd U O >

I

4. f* 3 b2 cc l

i i

i ..

c. N/

98%+c!-

n. m - 4 s l ..

~  ; =

's *2 us r. l e

l I A ' .

a n '

9ek.

6

,.Q- .we*

q Nhh*"m*""M- +

Fee ^i'd'%" N49--# -E -,

4 D.2.2 SUPPLEMENTARY DATA FOR HURRICANE CARLA, GALVESTON TRAVERSE Location of gage in 1961:

Longitude - 94 48 s Latitude - 29*19'

( Depth of gage in 1961: -12 feet (MLW)

Tide datum relationships for a semi-dfurnal tide:

0.0 SLD = 0.37 feet (MLW) 0.0 MLW = 0.62 feet (MLLW)

Tide datum relationship for a diurnal tide:

0.0SLD=0.99 feet (MLW) i l

V T

1

, _ _ , , _ .-,--.,-,.n--.-. . , - - ,

- w l

.- ._ _. _ _ . _ _. .__s _ _

d TRAVERSE LINE BATHYMETRY DEPTH DISTANCE ALONG TRAVERSE _

Feet (MLW)

(Nautical Miles) 0.00 600 5.43 300 11.74 240 18.94 200 19.83 180 .

34.86 150 45.34 120 49.25 108 58.53 85 63.94 75 66.09 60

' 63 69.82 70.92

- 68 73.31 60 75.33 54 78.37 55 89.23 50 90.55 45 91.49 40 92.19 35 93.29 30

' 93.46 29 94.34 22 94.69 18 '

l i 12

i. 95.13

' 6  !

95.33

! 0

95.48 ,

1

. I l

l

--_c . .-,,,:, __ }

f%

ASTRONOMICAL TIDE:

GALVESTON PLEASURE PIER, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 9, 10, 11, 12, 1961 TIDE ELEVATION Feet above MLW TIME DAY Sept'09 Sept 10 Sept 11 Sept 12 0 1.40 1.30 1.20 1.30 100 1.80 1.60 1.60 1.50 200 2.10 2.00 1.90 1.80 .

300 2.20 2.20 2.10 2.00 400 2.20 2.20 2.20 2.10 500 2.10 2.10 2.10 2.10 600 1.90 1.90 2.00 2.00 700 1.70 1.70 1.70 1.70 800 1.50 1.50 1.50 1.50

, 900 1.40 1.30 1.30 1.30 1000 1.40 . 1.30 1.20 .00 1100 1.50 1.40 1.20 .00 1200 1.70 1.60 1.40 .00 1300 1.90 1.80 1.60 .00 1400 2.00 1.90 1.80 .00 1500 2.00 2.00 2.00 .00 1600 1.80 2.00 2.10 .00 1700 1.60 1.80 2.00 .00 1800 1.30 1.60 1.80 .00 1900 1.00 1.30 1.60 .00 2000 .80 1.00 1.30 .00 2100 .70 .90 1.10 .00 2200 .70 .90 1.00 .00 2300 1.00 1.00 1.10 .00 From 1960 issue of Reference 9

=-,- n g: y ,, n . , g n_,

O.2.3 SUPPLEMENTARY DATA FOR HURRICAf1E CARLA, SABIflE PASS TRAVERSE Location of gage in 1961:

Longitude - 93* 51.2' Latitude - 29 42.3' Depth of gage: -6.8 feet MCW Tide datum relationships for a semi-diurnal tide:

O.0 SLD = 0.16 feet (MLW) 0.0MLW=0.60 feet (MLLW) i Tide datum relationship for a diurnal tide:

0.0 SLD = 0.76 feet (MLW) 7 w f -P7 L . * ~*** ^*'"' ~ " "'*

7'V'I"'."ID ' .

' E

_ . . -.- . ._ _ ..m--

asa TRAVERSE LINE BATHYMs.TRY DISTANCE ALONG TRAVERSE D(PTH (nauticalmiles) feet (MLW) 0.00 '600 14.96 300 17.22 240 30.22 200 34.57 180 40.23 150 46.24 120 52.17 . 96 55.94 78 72.28 66

(

78.32 60 82.97 60 88.66 47 93.81 42

~

97.15 30 100.70 30 101.64 35 105.87 40 106.97 37 107.77 .30 109.05 25 109.80 20 110.15 18 111.03 15 111.36 12 112.23 6 112.56 4 113.55 2

! 113.77 0 1

(

77 r_,_ . . .,,,....w,,m,_,y,.m

. . . ~ .

l ASTRONOMICAL TIDE SABINE PASS, TEXAS SEPTEMBER 9, 10, 11, 12, 1961 l TIDE ELEVATION l TIME DAY Sept 09 Sept 10 Sept 11 Sept 12 l l

0 1.70 1.60 1.53 1.58 100 2.00 1.93 1.85 1.84 200 2.30 2.20 2.13 2.09 300 2.35 2.35 2.32 2.28 400 2.33 2.37 2.38 2.37 500 2.16 2.21 2.27' 2.33 -

600 1.91 1.93 1.99 2.09 700 1.70 1.64 1.65 1.72 800 1. 60 1.46 1,38 1.36 900 1.63 1.45 1.29 1.15 1000 1.73 1.54 ' 1.34 .00 f

1100 1.88 1.70 1.48 .00 1200 2.04 1.88 1.68 .00 1300 2.17 2.06 1.89 .00 1400 2.23 2.18 .07 .00 1500 2.16 2.23 2.19 .00 1600 1.88 2.12 2:23 .00 1700 1.48 1,81 2.10 .00 1800 1.06 1.41 1.82 .00 1900 .76 1.04 1.49 .00 2000 .66 .83 1.23 .00 2100 .74 .83 1.13 .00 2200 .95 .97 l'19. .00 2300 1.25 1.22 1.35 .00 From 1960 issue of Reference 9

~

O '4 I YT g' p@

s

[,.,P'9O, ,s% Pj ^

.m

• * -s

( $ M 6Y N ,g

a ga-.ma*

O D.2.4 AEC SUPPLIED DATA FOR HURRICANE AUDREY e

\

/

4

' ~ ' " " " -

~'-<yn-m.._7 __ _

'>n-.' 7 -~ 7 ? r - w. , , , y _ _ ,

s, o l t-L l i \

s ,, o f L tri ,,

u

$ uh ,, 31 p $h , m 2' ..< '

f.:

l g,

w ( V-NM G- l i

PANQ '

"'f' i

i I t s g[(

• e [ sai x l-P. f .. .

r Q e g

'O Q. %

Mats PAu , ,d .

eA

Qty '

=* ,,p Q; y ',v) e ,..

auc, M ** ,j a_e w 1n l

,, 2- .

1. ah I

u<

. l Ol '

June FF oc

1. I

3) s I

33, 90 f5* -

- 1 I

r. l

_ \  : __

ao 3,

18 st i

u 19 ..

u t 33 3

12 10

(*>

'* ~ ~ ~

e , .' - 25'

"' Figure 1. TRACK OF HURRICANE AUDREY --JUNE 27,1957 a

A O lYUn*LY POSITICik' 07 CENTE/? (CST) e t

~ ~ ' "

• * * * * * - g __ - - . . . -. -

s'11h++ 6=ver 4 , :s.h *m.mmme,e6m.$, -gmp.e em _.eenemp..h- m w e e ammase.-.g , p. ,ey.ah- e *wa am.rq.,aym.4. 's%&w W ped..

h 5 emae m '

1: 3u l y o

' t *

- ' se i .

1 24 a I h s E M %. E

% N

{;,s #

, .f,

,~* 3.;;f)/d 2*

5 \ .

y

/_

/

.!o! !, !nG f e w.e_ -

s ,!

\

f, , - _

N 2

, sr a

.a k

r

/ ,

, s 4_ J r m Jf  ! mb / / -

\

p

~

Qv ,

, x s

• ~ ^ s y {} < ~

h ut- # c._

T  %

e,i l- ./'

/ [ [" ' . :. h- --l .. . .. .. - _ )

50:$ l f ,f s '

\

('7~b -N

\l ~M- 'g F

/ /

v -- s % \

e y=p e it 5 -a /

Wk /

9 f JfM.3 b

xy' y_ _ _-

w o -

n

g ,

s t;

5 ~h.k S\ \- ' / '

\\ \

M g f

,l' s 8 - }-- ,'

~

,f.-e- - . -

-, n b ]'

li'

.? .

~ 41 h

~~~

.~_ gg

,__ .~. . .

..,. ._.___.,,_....-,__,_,__,_._,.,_..,_i

= - - -

_ .. . . _ . ._ ._ _ _ . . . _ _ .1. ._

p .

l Mr. R. C. DeYoung -

2- March 28,1973 l l

' 2. We are concerned about the apparent continuing uncertainty l

in your staff's status reports on calibration of models l from these several burricane data. Enclosure (I) of your l March 12, 1973, letter states in the first paragraph, l "We and our consultant believe that a stillwater level 1 of 33.4 ft. MLW (compared to your estimate of 29.6 ft. MLW)  !

should be adopted for the site, unless the information requested below relating to your model proves conclusively that it is at least as capable of reproducing historical hurricane surge hydrographs as our model." This implies that the hurricane data had itTready been necessarily digitized for your model runs. Had the digitized data been available, and runs completed, as earlier indicated -

verbally by your staff, we could have met the submittal date of May ll,1973, as requested in your March 12, 1973, letter.

• We have analyze'd the work requirements for preparation of the response j to your March 12, 1973, letter based on our very latest communications. i As stated above, a six (6) week schedule penalty has resulted from our  !

misunderstanding about the form of the hurricane data. As a result, we expect to docket our response to your March 12 letter on July 7, i v 1973. This is, of course, contingent on receipt of the final exchange l of hurricane data soon after April 6,1973, from your staff and your )

response in the next several days to the Dames and Moore letter tele-copied to your staff March 23,1973 (copy attached), requesting clarification of the Hurricane Camille data.

^

4 We continue to appreciate the concerned attitude of your staff in re-solving the Crystal River hurricane surge question. We look forward

! to a prompt resolution in early July to everyone's satisfaction.

Very truly yours.

. J. T. Rodge Assistant Vice President JTR/iw Attachment.

s V- % nwo , - ," n-mema -w my _4 ,. - , 4 ,gmm ppm, p.., pn m,, .

_,__,, up

. . . . . . - - _ . - _ ~ . . - . . . . - . .- . <.

4 i

r UNITED STATES ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION C**b I

WASHf NGTON, D.C. 20S45 APR 2 1973' Ron Noble Dames & Moore Suite 1000 1100 Glendon Avenue Los Angeles, California 90o21+

Dear Ron:

Under separate cover I em sending you the remainder of the basic data previously promised. It includes traverses for Freeport '

and Sabine, Texas, Hurricane Ione storm data, and the 199 hurricane data along the East Coast of the United States. n addition, and as a bonus, I am enclosing basic storm data for Hurricane Audrey which may be of interest and use. Surge hydrographs for these storms are presented in the ASCE paper previously furnished.

The following are responses to questions raised by Jim Hendrickson which you transmitted.to me by teleccpier on March 22, 1973:

a) The format you identified (statement 300 + 3) to input historical storm data in the CERC model was developed to allow data that had been generated for actual wind fields to be used in the CERC model. You are correct that some of the data is redundant. Modifications are being made to the CERC program to streamline data input for further verification ourposes. As per our agreement, those changes will be furnished you as they become available.

b)TheHurricaneCamilledi1tizeddatafurnishedyoucontains 6

redundant values of SA(N). The Hurricane Camille data was also not prepared for short time steps. Both CERC and the AEC staff are in the process of reviewing the Hurricane Camille data and any revisions thereto will be furnished  ;

as available.

c) We have iniependently compared the Hurricane Camille storm parameters with HUR 7-97 and, although severe, we do not agree that the storm was of probable maximum severity. We

)

are, however, continuing to discuss the basic data for i tLis storm with NOAA on an informal basis to determine l whether storm isovels are correct. Should we determine any '

• = WMla.r -e am .*h-ggMA="gr,.ep ,pp. mm _ ymg, , _ Q _ q,q ,9

, ,,,q , , , , , , ,

/ Ron Noble- -

2- I N3

'~

.t errors in the data furnished you, we will forward any changes. I have discussed the basic calibration of CERC's model and historical high water data for Hurricane Camille with R. Jachowski of CERC. A water level of 25 0 MW (24.2 MSL) is the maximum water level reported for Hurricane Camille by the USGS in their Hydrological Atlas HA h02 for Pass Christian, Mississippi. In addition, a review of tide gage data for Hurricane Camille indicates no open coast surge hydrograph data is available. Further-more, no time of high water is indicated for the USGS high water level at Pass Christian, Mississippi.

Sincerely, c

L. G. Hulman, Senior Hydraulic Engineer Site Analysis Branch

Enclosures:

As stated (under separate cover)

(' cc: w/oenclosures R. Jachowski, CERC 3

P ' _*%%y m -.anhM euwew -eg go eg g _p 7s s ipy g f p. aAp _ g-- pqpgmw=e  ; .N -f 4  %

• W_e ..g 4"89 g7', M"P2 r, y ,-@ , -

g nm

Q tw -

' .' W A% /

f- .

UNITED STATES 'f4M W

, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION /M M wasamoros,o.c. aus

,) f o? - of-27 Docket No. 50-302 g y, g Florida Power Corporation

' ATTN: Mr. J. T. Rodgers Assistant Vice President &

Nuclear Project Manager P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 -

Gentlemen: ,

You are one of several applicants who are utilizing the services of Dames and Moore to establish hurricane-related design requirements for nuclear ,

power plants. At a meeting on February 15, 1973, the Regulatory staff agreed to evaluate the Dames and Moore hurricane surge calculational model. To ussist in this evaluation, i.he Regulatory staff agreed to forward to Dames and Moore data on four hurricanes. This data is con--

t tained in the open files of the U. S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center (CERC). The Regulatory staff agreed to forward these CERC data in what-i ever form they existed-in the files. Since the material.for hurricane Camille was in digitized form, this has led, apparently, to the misunderstanding that the other material to be forwarded would be in digitized form.

We wish to inform you that as of March 30, 1973, all of the data on the four hurricanes has been transmitted to Dames and Moore, as agreed, in the '

form in which it existed in the CEICfiles. With respect to the Dames and l Moore questions contained in the attachment to your March 28, 1973 letter, our answers have also been provided to Dames and Moore. We understand from '

your letter of March 28, 1973 that you will require until July 7, 1973 to reduce the data of the CERC files and to respond to our information request "

of March 12, 1973. This delay in your submission from the May 11, 1973 date we previously specified is most unfortunate from the standpoint of maintaining review schedules. We urge you to attempt to improve your submission date.

Please be assured that the staff'has no uncertainty as to its position on the hurricane-related design requirements for the Crystal River Unit 3 Plant. .

These requirements are set forth in Enclosure 1 of our March 12, 1973 letter.

Your. assumption that calculation of hurricane surge hydrographs by CERC and AEC implies that other hurricane data has already been digitized is incorrect.

, Calculation of historical hurricane surge levels by CERC has traditionally been done by hand, a , technique available to you and your consultants as well as to CERC.

v.

.T l

x'.es--*~* we~ ' -

e s _-?

mv r n v M W ~* ,,.- --- -

d*3* w  % W"#' *M*

' ' lL .' . T ' ': * ' P' T 2 '" L E T M I

Florida Power Corporation APR 1 2 SU

/ l You should understand that although the staff has agreed to consider the Dames and Moore hurricane surge calculational model, we are very reluctant to accept, as n basis for staff conclusions, proprietary material which must be ' sept from the public record of an application.

We believe that the public interest is best served by having all of the technical bases for the staff conclusions on an application on the record and available for public view. Dames and Moore has also been informed of our reluctance on this matter.

Sincerely, R. C. DeYo g, Assis ant Director for Eressurized Water Reactors Directorare of Licensing cc: - S. A. Brandimore -

Vice President & General Counsel P. O. Box 14042-St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 1

I 4

e i

I l

\ -

1

. g

+ = = r, y - - ,q ~

__.g .

,p.m._ , ., - , , . - ., ,, ,,

UNITED STATES 9 ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION l

• I ' ' l* I

^

WASHINGTON. D.C. 20545

,  %' I ee  !

APP ~1 2 1973 l

1 I

Mr. Donald Nelson l Director of License Services

. Technical Group l Dames & Moore j 1100 Glendon Avenue '

Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Mr. Nelson:

We understand that a forthcoming Dames & Moore report describing the bases for Hurricane surge estimates provided to applicants for nuclear power plant licenses is considered by your firm to be proprietary infor-mation and exempt from public disclosure. As described in 10 CFR Part 2 g 2.790 (copy enclosed) of the AEC's rules and regulations, you should j provide a detailed explanation of the reasons why disclosure would adversely affect you'r intereste and why disclosure is not required in the public interest. In addition, a separate version of the report, which contains all non-proprietary information, should also be provided.

The technical information required in support of your storm surge model is described in our letter of March 12, 1973, to the Florida Power Corporation on' Crystal River, Unit 3 (copy enclosed).

Sincerely, Harold R. Denton, Assistant Director i 1

for Site Safety l Directorate of Licensing l

Enclosures:

1. 10 CFR Part 2, g 2.790

2. Ltr. dtd. 3/12/73 to Florida Power Corp.

l cc: . Noble, Dames & Moore, w/ enc 1s. b Los ANGELE3

.IUh h $$!0 VAs 0 Tm O CA C CM1 O WPT O T110 3;M O CK J cm o m U W 0 ?.

rg y C ";;;c 1 !.S ,

i i

E.C3 Ci*'. -

"lD S LJ M :/ C A L - - '

12MAi3 l

~- ,_ -. ry - 7. mm- - - w my -w----~~ r-~-- _

A 7mre* '-== t

. a 6 4. a a L.m.J v. . m. W.a PtDEaAr. RrcrsTra a nottee of proposed rule making, unless all persons subject to the notice are named and either are persona!!y served or otherwiss have actual notice in accordance with law.

(b) The notice win include:

AV Attaan.trv or OrrscIAL Raconos (1) Elther the terms or sucstance of the proposed rule, or a speci". cation of p 2.700 Publie Inspectione, exceptions, the subjects and issues involved; requests for whhholding. (2) The manner and Mme within (a) Except as provided in paragraphs Ca S 16 interested members of the pub-(b) and (d) of this rection. Correspond- i [c may c mment. and a statement that

.f- (p copies of comments may be examined

= ence or portions of correspondence to and . .

e frcm the AEC regardhig the issuance. O in the Public Document P.oom:

den lal, amendment, transfer, renewal. 3 ,

l (3) The e.uthority under which the i  ; I regulation is proposed:

! rnedi!! cation, suspension, revocation or ;jj

, violation of n Hecnse, permit, or order. g ~l b (4) The time, place, and nature of the public hearing. if any; a or re:'arding a ru!c making broceeding subject to this Part 2 sha!! not bo exempt (5) If a hearing is to be held desig-nation of the presiding of:1cer and any from disclosure and w!U be made avail. special directions for the conduct of the ab e for inspection and copying in the hearing; and AEC Pub!!c Document Room. (6) Such explanatory statement as t0) A person wno proposes that a docu. the Com*fon may consider appro-ment or a part be wi*hheld in whole or Subpart H-Rufe Making Pri^t*-

in part frcm pubne disclosure shan at. $ 2.800 Scope of rule making. '

• the time of f1'ing it submit an application a tice wiu e m e not Im than Nteen for withholding or make timely applica.: This subpart governs tlie issuance. (15) days prior to the time fixed for tion thereafter identifying the document amendment and ~ repeal of regulations In hearing. if any, unless the Con mienn or part, arm statiny recaQDiwhy.it should g which participation by interested persons f goo ges o cause stated in the notice pro-erw e.

be withheld.inHe incorporate shall. as far a separate as possible.:is paper prescribed any part of the under Code.

United States section 553 of title 5

$ 2.303 Participation by interested per.

sou: ht to be withheld. The Commission 5 2.301 Initiation of rule making. eens.

may withhold r.ny document or part from Rule making may be initiated by the (a) The Comm%1on will acord inter-putuc inspection if disclocure of its con- Commission at its own instance, on the ested persons an opportunity to partie.

ten *.s is not required pursuant to Part 9 recommendation of another agency or ipate in rule mr. king throu:h the sub-of this chapter, is not required in the the United States, or on the petition of mission of statements, trJormation, pubue interest and would adversely afect any other interested person. opinions, and argumer ts in the manner the interest of a person concerned.With- stated in the notice. The Commission holdin:: from public inspection shaU not. $ 2.802 Petition for rule making. may grant additional reasonable opper.

1 Sct;crer c'!ect the right. if any, of per- Any interested person may petition tunity for the submission of comments.

'lons properly and directly concerned to the Commtaton to issue, amend. or (b) ne Commisalon may hold infor-in:pect the document. If the applicant rescind any regulattan. mal hearings at which interested per-fails to comply with the requ!rements of ** The pection shoubt be addressed sons may be heard, adopting procedures this aragrrph. the Commission will in , to the Secretary. UE. Atomic Energy which in its judgment win best serve

'orm him that it intends to deny his @mm n. Washington. D.C. 20545 .the purpose of the hearing.

bpucation unless he complies with those fttention: Chief. Puhuc Proceedings pe $ 2.806 Commission action.

rMuirements within the time stated in the notice.

dan cg The Commission will incorporate in Proposed regulation or amendment. or the notice of adoption of a regulation a (e) If a request is denied, the Com- shall specify the regulation the rescia. concise general statement of its basis l mission will notify an applicant of the sion or amendment of which is desired, and purpose, and wiu cause the rotice and shall state the beels for the re. and regulation to be published in the no e f eni in s ify tim'e, no he eW wm assan a doc. hwa w med m af.

less than thirty (30) days after the date ket number to the petition. deposit a persons, of the notice, when the document will copy in the Public Document Room, and be placed in the Pub!!c Document Room. cnuse nouce of the fulng of the peMMon -

If, within the time specified in the no, to be pub 11ahed in the FzDeaAr RsczsTsa. The nottee of adoption of a regulation tice, the applicant requests withdrawal Publication win be limited by the re- will specify the effective date. Publica-of his appi cation, the document w!!! not quirements of section 181 of the Act tion or service of the notice and reguh.-

be placed in the Pub!!c Document Room. and may be limited by order of the tion, other than one granting or recog-Commission. nizing exemptions or re!!eving from

! (d) Correspondence and reports to or res cd be mad 4 2.803 Determination of petition. , t les from the AEC which identify a licensee's No hearing wiu be held on the pett-y or appucant's control and accounting tion unless the Commission deems it date unless the Commission directs otherwise on good cause found and pub.

, procedures for safeguarding licensed advisable. If the Commt== ton deter. 11shed in the notice of rule making.

- special nuclear material or detailed secu- mines that suf5cient reason exists. it will a rity measures for the physical protection publish a notice of proposed rule making.

of a licensed facility, shall be deemed to In any other case. It will deny the pett-Subport I--Special Procedures App!!.

be commercial or financial information tion and will notify the petitioner with cab!a to Adfudicofory Proceedings within the meaning of I 9.5(a)(4) of a simple statement of the grounds of Involving ReifQ+ed Data this chapter and shall be subject to dis, dental. $ 2.900 Purpose.

c:osure only in accordance with the pro- $ 2.804 Notice of proposed rule snaking. This subpart is !ssued pursuant to sec-visions of j 9.10 of this chapter.

(a) When the Comm'antan proposes to adopt, amend, or repeal a regulation h"4, as amended, to provide such pro.181 of It wiu cause to be published in the cedures in proceedings subject to this part as w1H efectively safeguard and prevent disclosure of Restricted Data to unauthorized persons, with minimum impairment of procedural rights.

I a , s. m l August 22, 1970 31a /

,,g s,,. .-w+eh--. #"- " . _

w: .

. o .

o AddL f

i MAR 12 1973 Docket No.30-302 .

5 Florida Power Corporation

• AITN: Mr. J. T. Rodgers Assistant Vice President &

Nuclear Project Manager hU '.$2 E0U[ [0 u

@0 UI F. O. Box 14042 y e St. Petersburg, Florida 33733 U j

' b; , ,

lJ g s ._ Ub i ._,

Gentlemen:

{

\s -

On the basis of our continuing review of the Final Safety Analysis Report (FSAR) for Crystal River, Unit 3 Nuclear Generating Plant, we find that we need additional infor=ation  ;

to courplete our evaluation. The specific infor=ation is listed in enclosures (1) and (2). Enclosure (1) details our position on hurricane protection based on available infor=ation and .

' specifies additional information which we require to further {

i

' evaluate the validity and applicability of.the Dames and Moore model to this application. '

While the staff will objectively evaluate the additional information requested in enclosure (1), you are, of course, aware that this information e.ay or may not provide a reasonable basis for significantly revising our present assess =ent. That assess =ent la that the plant should be designed to withstand a probable en4== hurricane (P?E) surge that produces a stillwater level of 33.4 feet mean low water (MLU) coc: pared to your present estia: ate of 29.6 feet MLU. .

\

' ' Aa noted in your letter of February 22, 1973, the facility has been designed to withstand a PIE surge that produces a stillwater level of only 24.5 feet MLU. This is well below current estiraates by both Florida Power Corporation and the staff. Therefore, in order to couplete our evaluation of the

' design adequacy of the piant in this area, we vill requira the additional infornation requested in enclosure (2).

M 1

. , . , , --,- ~ c--~~ i

.=

Plorida Power Corporation ~

!UUt 12 1873

. i Because of the potentially significant effect of these ite=a on our licensing review schedule, we vill need a ce=pletely adequate re'sponse by May 11, 1973. Please inform us within seven days after receipt of this letter of your confir=ation of the schedule or the date you vill be able to meet. If you cannot neet our specified date or if your reply is not fully responsive to our requests it is. highly likely that the overall schedule for completing the licensing review for this project will require coupletion of the new assignment prior to returning to this project, the extent 'of extension vill most likely be greater than the extent of delay in your response. '

Please contact us i.f you have any questions regarding the enclosed -

requests.

. Sincerely,

. . Origfr.1 signed by L C. DeYoung E. C. DeYoung, Assistant Director for Pressurized Water. Reactors s Directorate of Licensing

Enclosures:

(1) and (2) Requests for Additional

. Information cc: S. A. Erandicore Vice President & - -

General Counsel P. O. Box 14042 St. Petersburg, Florida 33733

)

piF T 4

--e...es~ m ~ r w=

• e- *wne nmo vme _ - w w" ~ ~m mwm m** *w*'-'+-ws"~**'**'"

• n". , >

• "~_"*'**"'**TM'??'---

'"?

. . . _ ~ _ _ _ _ . . _ _ _ . . - . _ . _ . _ _ - . _ .~

f .

ENCLOSURE (1)

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FLORIDA POWER CORPORATION *

. DOCKET NO. 50-302-You have requested an evaluation and approval of a hurricane surge rodel, which differs in certain significant aspects from that used by the staff in previous reviews. Your Amendment 23 response to previous questions on hurricane protection and the information provided at the February 15, 1973 meeting about your modal is not sufficient to justify an approval of your codel or a departure from the use of our model. We and our consultant believe that. a stillwater level of 33.4 ft.' MLW (compared to .

your estimate of 29.6 f t. MLW) should be adopted for the site, unless the information requested below relating to your rodel proves conclusively that it is at least as capable of reproducing historical hurricane surge hydrographs as our modell , Our estimated level is based on h"u'R 7-97 storm parameters of a large radius to maximum winds of 24 nautical miles, high speed of translation.(20 knots), and includes a two foot stillwater level reduction for overland flooding between the coastline and the plant. To consider your model further, we will require:

y 1) a complete mathematical and theoretical description of the =odel;

2) your basis for the selection of significant input paracaters and a discussion of their degree of conservatism, including bottom stress coefficients, wind stress coefficients, and any other calibration ,

coefficients;

3) a comprehensive verification of the nodel and its par *. 5 7 4 . by a comparison with the recorded surge hydrographs and peak water levels using recorded wind field and pressure data for at leiast the

• following storms:

a) hurricane Carla (1961) surge hydrographs at Galveston and Freeport,

6. Texas; -

$'s " . .

b) the October 3,1949 hurricane surge hydrographs at Galveston and Freeport, Texas; .

c) hurricane Ione (1955) at a location north of where the storm crossed the East Coast; d) Hurricane Camm111e (1969) peak water level on the Gulf Coast

4) an explanation and analysis of the principal differences between your maximum surge for Crystal River and the staff's estimate.

Wiw=:-- - -

- 2- -

5) We disagree with the basic application of your model to the PMH surge level and, therefore, the coincident wind wave activity at the site.

, The following are the areas of disagreement, or areas for which insufficient information has been provided, and for which either a revised estimate or substantiation of your position should be provided, a) The ambient tide conditions during which'a PMH is assu=ed include both a high spring tide, and what is generally termed an initial rise. The initial rise is considered to be a sea level ano=aly, and is estimated by compsring recorded and predicted tides. Based on several years o~f record at local Gulf Coast tide stations, an initial rise of 0.6 feet should be assumed for the site. This 1 condition is not considered a function of meteorological factors )

which could cause a PMH, such as indicated on page 7 of your ~l Appendix 2c, butirather to other causes as are generally observed l in tide records. LProvide a revised surge estimate including the j above consideration. I l

b) Hurricane wind speed adjustments, when the storm is approaching l closely to shore, are discussed in the memoranda HUR 7-97 (which was prepared by the Hydrometeorological Branch of the Weather i

Bureau - now National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) and  !

your Appendix 2c. Howpver, surface wind speed reductions at two

\ miles offshore would produce more conservative surge "esti= aces than would the selected three mile value and should be included in a revised surge esti= ate. If reference can be made, however, to documented evidence that wind t, pend reductions can be assumed further offshore, this less conservative assumption would be

acceptable, c) No water surf ace frictional est', mates are presented. Based on the U.S. Army Coastal Engineering Research Center publication, Technical Menorandum 35, however, it has been found that surface friction should be assumed to vary with wind speed. Your assu=p-tions should be presented, and if different than the referenced publication, they should b^ substantiated.

• 1 d) For each safety-related structure, system, and cocponent identified necessary for plant protection (see Request 2.16), and based on

, both a stillwater level of 33.4 ft. MLW and your fully verified stillwater elevation estimate, provide tabulations of the height of the most significant (average of the highest one-third) and the maximum- (1 percent) waves, or the breaking waves (whichever is

the most severe) and the associated runup for each case.

e) Discuss the applicability of your hydraulic model studies for

. estimating runup on and over the soil-cement protected e=bankment

' and on interior facilities for both water levels and wave conditiont discussed herein.

, .- -.,,,.-.y-,,m-

---

m . ,

, .,7 er .; y g . mry_ _-~,.-_w m m .,....- m _ w

T' Enclosure (2) '

REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL IN70RMATION FIDRIDA POWER CORPORATION DOCKET m . 50-302 2.0 SITE AND ENVIRONMENT 2.15 Section 2.4.2, modified by Amendment 23, indicates that the. facility will be allowed to operate for hurricanes less severe than the probable maximum hurricane (PMH), but that the plant will be shutdown for more severe hurricanes up to and including the PME. Provide the following information for events less severe than the PMH for which operation will be allowed in sufficient detail to allow an independent i review to be made of the adequacy of your facilitics and operating j plans: -

. l 2.15.1 Describe the limiting, hurricane-induced conditions of water level, l wave action,. etc., and their bases, for which cold shutdown will be undertaken. Include assurances that sufficient time will be available l to complete cold shutdown before hurricane levels become critical.

2.15.2 Provide a conmitment to a technical specification for cold shutdown of the plant based on 2.15.1 above, and include a discussion of the emergency procedures that t/ill be required to protect the' safety-related s structures, systems, and components required for maintenance of shutdown for hurricane conditions up to and including those caused by a PMH.

2.15.3 ' Identify those safety-related structures, systems, and components necessary for safe operation (see Safety Guide 29). Compare the conditions identified in Request 2.15.1 above with the design bases and general adequacy of each such facility to perform its required function, and indicate any action required to assure functionality for hurricane conditions up to those requiring shutdown.

2.16 For hurricane conditions more severe than those for which operation would be allowed, up to and including PMH conditions that both you and' the staff have estimated, identify all those safety-related structures, systems, and components necessary to assure maintenance of shutdown conditions. Discuss the ability of each structure, system, and component to withstand both the static and dynamic consequences of hurricanes up to and including those of PMH severity for both stillwater level estimates.

2.16.1 Provide assurance that failures of Units 1 and 2, or any other non-safet; structures, systems or components, in the event of severe hurricanes will not impair the functionality of safety related equipment required for safe shutdown of Unit 3.

m 1 1

l l

5:

www--m- - m e-+ + 4.e yyg - + . ea *7. m.gi, ym g 7 j w; n ,w s

• e- g -*my

• W-Amr.. e., o @.ge p .g r ?,y. v ww- %,4s 9F7"'* 6

• g7f *{

1

.2- *

. l 2.17 Provide the minissa submergenca levels for both circulating and  !

service water pumps. l 2.18 We understand that the soil-cement protected embankment is required to maintain the functionality of safety-related facilities during l hurricane conditions. ' Substantiate its ability to withstand the ,

static and dynamic consequences of wattr level and frontal wave i

. action for both PMH estimates. Documentation may consist of taference to other coastal facilities which have experienced conditions I

.similar to those postulated for the Crystal River site, to full scale hydraulic undel studies, or to ' analytical studies of static and dynamic forces. Also discuss the ability of the protection and the e= bank:nne to withstand wave overtopping. If the embankment is not required for hurricane protection, provide yottr assumptions of its failure during -

such events and the consequences of failure on required safety-related facL.1cies.

2.19 (i

Provide substantiated assurance of the ability of safety-related structures, , systems, and components necessary for safe operation, and those required for cold shutdown and maintenance thereof, to withstand rainfall and spray; either associated with severe hurricanes, or independently thereof. For instance, discuss the ability of site drainage, including the roofs of safety-related structures and s exterior pet.etrations, to safely store or pass runoff without a loss of function.

s 4

I l

l c l r ,-

, . . a n ,, _n ,~,.

-  :- ,r c- n--w,~ ~ ~-o -r .

.n

UNITED STATES

• b ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION WASHINGTON D.C. 20S45

( F i

APR 3 01973 Mr. Ron Noble Dames & Moore Suite 1000 1100 Glendon Avenue Los Angeles, California 90024

Dear Ron:

Under separate cover today I am sending you data for Hurricane '

Carol (1954) for the East Coast of the United States. The data includes wind fields, pressures, traverse, storm traverse, and tide records received from CERC. This storm is being used by CERC and ourselvss to help verify surge models instead of Hurricane Ione; the .et. son for the change being a lack of quality in historical tide data for Hurricane Ione.

Sincerely, L. G. Hulman, enior Hydraulic Engineer Site Analysis Branch Directorate of Licensing Enclosure as:

(Under separate cover)

DAMES & MOORE LOS ANGELES t.: u 2 1973 VAS O TEB C DJL O DAM O V/PT O RM[,1 O JRfA O CHR O DEN O WJA O 33v 0 cc O l NFy O VlR3 O CDS O CIH U EGR O l}{K O JRK O ItLK O TDS g IsMP Q JDC O 14 O RMAG

' HW"w-" =s' --me- g ryp~+w,, , , , , , _

9602-004-27 Florida Power Corporation Spickler, Eaton -WA Fischer-CNFD DEN-MS JAH, JTC- EO May10,1973 Florida Power Corporation General Office 4

3201 - 34th Street P.O. Box 14042 ~

St. Petersburg. Florida 33733

, Attention: Mr. J.T. Rodgers.

Assistant Vice President Gentlemen:

This letter is in response to the Atomic Energy Consission's letter of April 12, 1973 to Florida Power Corporation from Mr. R.C. DeYoung and their letter of April 12, 1973 to Dames & Moore from Mr. Harold R. Denton

\

concerning proprietary information to be contained in our report defining verffication of our stom surge model.

The only proprietary material that we plan to retain at the present time is the actual coding of our computer hurricane storm surge model. Our report will nt,t contain this computer coding but will refer to it as reference material which will be available for the Atomic Energy Commission's review. Therefore all material contained in our report will be nonproprietary. This material will include a complete description of our model and its use, the mathanatics of our model, all work perfomed on verification of our model, and its application to the Crystal River Nuclear Generating Station.

If the AEC approves our miodel as an acceptable model after their review and requests us to release our computer coding for public disclosure with their stated reasons, then we will seriously consider this request.

w-

_A?

~

-~ ~ ^

i4r. J.T. Rodgers i4ay 10, 1973 Page Two The AEC has ' asked us for a reply to their letter concerning any proprietary material within our forthcoming report, since their letter to Dames & 14oore is concerned witn the generic use of our hurricane model. A copy of this letter is attached. If you have any consents or questions please give us a call.

Very truly yours.

DN4ES & i!0CRE Ronald M. !!oble Project '4anager Tdti/ds Attactnent ec: iir. John Hancock Florida Power Corporation s

l 1

I l

l N.

l 1

l g -- - .. . . c c. 3 ..-_ , .._...7._, ,,;,._,,... .. ,

m ___ _ j

, , . . m +*=wr>e m*-meh *-

9602-003-27 Florida Power Corporation h SPickler, Eaton -WA L Fischer -CNFD DEN-MS JAH.JTC-E0 gM&L iiay 10, 1973 l

Directorate of Licensing United States Atonic Energy Coisnission i

..ishf ag ton, a.C. .'3545 l

..d ent losa .;e. narold R. Lenton, '

Assistant Director for Site Safety 3e tar. Denton:

T.;is lentat . is ir, response tc jour letter of April 12, 1973

.o tr . Ju n. ~ .. ~ . .d wi cf Daaes i iloure concer. ting ;he proprietary

.u t . c vi' var f.:rt: cenia? report defininc verifi;acian of our storn.

2.rje i.ccel. It .as teen our intention since we undertook verification J our nurricca.a stcru surge aodel to release for ;avitc di3 closure all s 'atarial containco in our report. Tentati, rely, tais material will consist of a conoleto descri.ation of our model ano its aso, the mathanatics of our model, all work perfomed on verification of our noael anc its application to pre.a51e aaxinun horricanes.

Presently we plan to retain the computer coding of our nodal as proprietary taaterial and will treat it as reference idaterial to our forthcoming report, nowever, this computer coding will be available for your review. If after review of our report you approvc our raodel as acceptable and request us to release our coraputer coding for public af sclosure with your stated reasons then tre aill seriously consiuer your request.

If you have any questions concerning this letter please du not hesitate to call us.

Very truly yours, DAMES & MOORE Ronald M. Noble Project Manager cc: Mr. L.G. Hulman Atomic Energy Commission y _

,v _. . w- ,--- ~ , . . .n - _ _ .

. . - ~ .-s.. - n

~ ~

p.;

3 8

s g

m 1 as 4

W 3 -

M W <

Q

, -- (

A i,

i l

t s

I j

f i

3 l I

i

%-. _m_ """ = * ~%. = % __. ,, " "'* ##-* a r, e -

--.._mm.g_,,, 'l3 g-

,_x , y 3 4 4 APPENDIX B i

DAMES & MOORE COMPUTER MODEL DESCRIPTION l

(

l l

(

BRSFW

.f M _hruW X, k

s JENGE. E.T y mR M 3RRO DE%f Lb M_L .

_"?1 x d@u%;-

ma.

1. 9 1

4 r[wfb axw.g$N(f anaw)lEAfh[

% =f, - h.. !kfh, KINE 6 I Mf.

pnw . ,8.l -) van . .=n:)q  %

l sm( ,..

lf a i &  ?$it i *w 4 h ~&i . '

e a%ys yh.N

-2 .

6 ),

,+

t h y

u

.. w

, , l. "Y ghlC s

.?

fy.

o Eh

.- k.

%S  : .

t , ]( '

-f  %

-.,' ' ' gb '

.;, )tlt if ~ G '?:

(.' v t(e: y s .. ,,

," '&w.lj}.

k .;

.m ,.

.-N__ <

g.,  % g. -_..- _

IIA *,n43, k;!

~~

3 ,1 if di.

Udc,YS"jhg:,R$ 7

?! '#lwkp hf'.:* ... di y

@ .c n

-f 5,  : ny u rs y:,vp- m. . / sW& in

, v. *-

f SSf' $ $" _ Q;fj _ ~b t$r i

>Y k!$b e

h' .

mk

,  ;;, k gg>g,W. ..

77 . gj s 4'p

' i,,+i ,.,

e,

.s ~

,.g -

.. ?$ j, l .->  ;.y . : ,

• "%1]M jf,

,h w

f [ ,

t.

't y

-i f.h 3i;;

8 e s y

=r i

'e.:

?<

-j.

.Q yff?b- hi W )

r es ..

L:

gg' x,y l ,

, 5 h. '

l _ :.

i; .

- . _ . _ . _ _ . ___ .. _ -a . . -

r ,

h TABLE OF CONTENTS P, age, 11JRODUCTION . . . .. . ...... . . .... . . .. . .. .. . . . . 1 PART I GENERAL DESCRIPTION . . .. .... . .. . ... . . . . . . . . 3

1. Mathematical Statement of Surge Problem . ... . . . . . . . . 3

2. Probable. Maximum Hurricane Characteristics . . .. ... . . . 8 (a) Radius of maximum winds and translatory velocity . . . . . 10 (b) Central and asymptotic barometric pressure . .. . . . . . 11 (c) Location of primary radius of wind velocity distribution . 11

('

, (d) Path of hurricane relative to traverse line . . . . . . . 11 (e) Maximum sustained wind velocity . .. . . . .. . . . , . 12

3. Range of Basic FMH Parameters for Surge Calculations .... . . 13

4. Determination of Wind Field Properties of PMH .. .. . . . . 14

( .

5. Numerical Solution of One-Dimensional Surge Equations . . . . . . 19 1 1

6. Determination of Water Depth ... .. .... . . . . . . . . . 22 l

7. Computation of Wind Veloeity by Interpolation . . . . . . . . . . 24

-8. Overall Flow of Surge Computation . ... . .. . . . . . . . . . 26 i

(

PART II APPLICATION OF THE COMPUTER PROGRAM . . ... . . . . . . . . . 29 1

I

1. Input Data Required ...... . .. . ..... . .. . . . . 29 1 1

2. Outputs of the Program .. ... . .. . ... . . . . . . . . . 33 l 1

l PART III SAMPLE PROBLEM ..... . .. . ... .. . . . .... . . . 36 REFERENCES . . . . ... .. . ... . .. ....... . . . . . . . . . 45 1

1

-ATTACHMENT One Blank Data Input Sheet '

(.

i ,

f ,

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: HURRICANE STORM SURGE ANALYSIS-3ASIC REFERENCE FRAME . .. . 5 Figure 2: TYPICAL HURRICANE WIND FIELD PATTERN . ... .. .. . .... 9

(

Figure 3: GEOMETRY OF MOVING PMH SYSTEM FOR DETERMINING HURRICANE WIND FIELD VELOCITY DISTRIBUTION . . .. . .. . .. . .. . 15 Figure 4: INTERPOLATION PROCEDURE USED FOR A REPRESENTATIVE HURRICANE WIND VELOCITY VARIATION ALONG PRIMARY RADIUS . . .. 25 Figure 5: SIMPLIFIED FLOW DIAGRAM FOR HURRICANE STORM SURGE CALCULATION .. ........... ..... ... . . .. 27 Figure 6: DATA SHEET FOR SAMPLE STORM SURGE PROBLEM . .. . . . .. .. 3'3 Figure 7: PRINTOUT OF DATA USED FOR SAMPLE PROBLEM ...... ... . 41 Figure 8: WIND FIELD ALONG X-AXIS THROUGH HURRICANE .. .. .. . ... 42

{ Figure 9: SURGE AND FLUX AT TIME T = 23.25 HOURS AND T = 23.50 HOURS , . 43 Figure 10: TOTAL WATER ELEVATION AT COASTAL SITE vs TIME . . ... ... 44

- . . , . . - . - - ._ .--- ~ _. .---

e 9 I DAMES & MOORE COMPUTER PROGRAM DESCRIPTION EP34 HURRICANE STORM SURGE ANALYSIS l INTRODUCTION This is a description of a computer program designed to celculate the water level change at a coastal site caused by a maximum intensity hurricane traveling from deep water towards land.

(

Storm surges caused by maximum intensity hurricanes or " Probable Maximum Hurricanes" (PMH) constitute a major hazard for nuclear power plants located at coastal sites. Failure to design adequately for the effects of such a maximum hurricane on the water level may produce catastrophic con-( sequences for the power plant. The PMH storm, with a probability of occurrence on the order of 1 in 10,000 years, his been selected by the Atomic Energy -

Commission, as the necessary design event to insure adequate safety (Ref. 4).

The surge, or rise in the water level as a function of time, caused by

( a PMH storm, and due to local wave action is used to determine the changing water level at the site of a proposed plant. This information is then used in the design of sea walls, protective barriers, bulkheads, cooling water suction and discharge pipes, and ocher coastal structures associated with the plant.

Until recently, hurricane storm surge calculations were based on a simplified one-dimensional pseudo-static model, considering only the effects of the onshore wind drag and the variations in mean water depth. More recent k-

._ ___ __ _ ._ _ . _ . . _ _ _ . _ _ _ . . - _ , - s.__... .

e ,

Page 2 O

studies (see Refs.1 & 2) now incitide the effects of the time-dependent along-shore fluid motion on the water level. These latest investigations have result-ed in computer programs which can calculate the expected storm surge buildup with reasonable accuracy. These programs, however, are cumbersome to use, because the hurricane wind field and barometric pressure data mus: be input along a line passing through the hurricane wind field. l i

The computer program described in this paper, solves the basic mathemat- l l

ical equations for the surge problem by using highly accurate numerical .

( techniques. In additien, the input necessary to the program are simplified, so that only the basic PMH properties need to be known. The hurricane wind

~

t i

field and the birometric pressure variation at any point in the storm, which in previous programs had to be supplied, are now calculated by the computer program.

This computer program description is organized in the following manner:

Part I presents a general description and the mathematical statement of the hurricane storm surge problem, and the numerical solution techniques upon which the program is based. This section also

(

presents the basic input parameters of the problem, their deter-mination, and the means of obtaining the necesr ary PMH properties.

Part II describes the information necessary to use the computer program.

It presents the data which are required, the procedures for sub-mitting the input, the options which are available for operating the program and the results which are produced.

Part III presents a sample problem solved by means of the program. The development of the required input data is described and the results

(. produced by the computer are shown.

l I

\

P ,

~

Page 3 p

PART I GENERAL DESCRIPTION 4

1. Mathematical Statement of Surge Problem The equations of mass conservation and momentum for the mass of water associated with the surge activity are integrated over the water depth.

The resultant two-dimensicnal, time dependent equations for incompressible l l

flow are as follows:

3q x 1 gqxq y -Kg x qx2+qy2 -l

(

+g(h+})33+2qx }qx + -fLq 7

= +X 3t 3x h 3x h 3y (h +3 )2 l 3q -Kq y qx2+q 2  !

gg+2qy gqy + 13q qx y +f1qx = +Y (l) dty+g(h+$)by h by h Sx (h+3)2 g

39x+D9y+DD = 0 hX DY dt where qx = flow flux in the x direction (flow through a prism of unit width and a height equal to the water depth) r

(

qy = flow flux in the y direction

)=surgeelevation,orelevationofthewatersurfaceabove"still water depth" h = still water depth, at a given instant of time. This is assumed to include the mean low water depth, astronomic tide, barometric I

pressure effect of the moving storm, and the height of any surge which may occur as a forerunner of the storm i

A = Coriolis parameter = 0.5235 sin d, rad /hr d = degrees north latitude C

Page 4 p

g = Acceleration of gravity (32.2 ft/sec 2) l K = bottom friction factor l l

and X,Y represent components of surface traction or surface wind stress l divided by mass density.

To solve equations (1) it is necessary to introduce certain simplifying assumptions, as follows. Consider a line drawn from the coastal site under investigation to some point in deep water, so that the line is roughly per-pendicular to. the depth contours. The point in deep water is defined as the -

( origin of the coordinate system (see Figure 1). The line, called the " traverse line," will be defined as the "X" axis, with distances positive toward the shore. The following assumptions are made:

(1) Wind gradients and water depth gradients in a direction

( perpendicular to the X-axis are small. Therefore the prob-1.em can be reduced to a single dimension.

(2) No flow occurs in the X-direction, and the surge elevation occurs instantaneously in time. Thus coastal flooding (which

( implies flow toward the coast) is neglected, and a hypothetical vertical barrier to fluid motion along the coast is assumed.

As a result of these assumptions the height of the surge which is computed will be cons:rvative (too high), and some reduction in the computed surge height should be made to compensate for the effects of possible coastal flooding.

Equations (1) may now be simplified on the basis of the above assump-tions. The reduced one-dimensional equations, describing the surge and the alongshore flux, are as follows:

(

Pegi 5 C'

V k D(x)= Surge Origin x

/ y'/ '

lh(x) = mean water depth Coastal Site f'//,s'/'#'

at a given instant n time h > EOO

1. '8/0~*///cy7

( (ELEVATION) s/ s ~ yyy r

..t

( '* . " .) Coastline x

,, { g s Depth contours I -

l 1./ / -

8 f

.'.- .g i J

.. Oa l ,* . Coastal J g

,' l hte '

%% p Traverse line ,

Origin of

( x ',.,.  !

coordinate t

I System

'.9

• • 1 . l

\

'~, 7 (PLAN)

Figure 1: HURRICANE STORM SURGE ANALYSIS--

BASIC REFERENCE FRAME

. _ . _ . .__._ -__ _. --m_.

.- c Page 6

(

df Kf f

=Y-dt (h+3)2 d3 X +.Q,f dx g(h + 3 )

where f = qy = flow flux in y direction.

The components of surface traction, X and Y, may be written in terms of the local wind velocity and its vector compone:cs as follows:

, X = kUU x

( I Y = kUU y (3) '

where U, Ux , Uy represent the wind speed or its vector components (in sph).

The wind stress cofficient, k, is taken in the form suggasted by Wilson (Ref. 5) and Van Dorn (Ref. 3).

k = f,/ fy A + B (1 - Uo/U)2 (4,)

wherefa=airdensity l

fw = water density A,B are constants

(

Uo = critical wind

• velocity below which the parameter k is assumed .

1 independent of wind velocity I l

U = wind velocity.

In the above references, a value of Uo between 13 and 16 miles per hour (mph) is suggested. The program described herein uses a conservative value of Uo = 15 mph.

The density ratio, fa/[w, for standard conditions (20'c and. 29.92 inches Hg)'and assuming sea water may be taken to be 4

.( (f,//y)sTP=1.17x10 The above ratio is affected by changes in the barometric pressure and s,7..__. . _ . _ _ . ,. .

.- . - . . .- -- ~... - ._ -- .w.

Page 7.

k / $k ' %

• +/ _ EEm eA1,e~

TEST TARGET (MT-3)

'*%* ?

1.0 EfEM EM lM U B=1 2 tu l,l h_,* lllllb

.g I.25 ll 1.4 -

1.6 11 4 6" >

MICROCOPY RESOLUTION TEST CHART 4% +4

• $fd' 4,, .

<M<y'

• $*stN ghk'/% NAkh

1. $ \\ IMAGE EVALUATION N4g 4

\\\

TEST TARGET (MT-3) 1.0 l# 2 El l0 M

,; ru BH

==

l,l f

• hN l.8 1.25 1.4 1.6 p -

6" MICROCOPY RESOLUiiON TEST CHART

1. 4 hy $' *b+

+4%

a sg>

1. 49  ?//// <$b*'g%

'o > V &49 4

l

- -,u--

Page 9 7

velocity at the center of the storm is zero and wind velocities gradually increase to a maximum value at a certain radial distance. Winds then gradually decay to nominal values at a great distance frot, the storm center.

Wind velocity vectors are not tangent to the isovel lines, but tend to point somewhat towards the center of the storm.

t v 7

li Direction of forward motion with Translational Velocity, V T

/

[ Contour of Constant Wind Velocity )

i (Isovel)  !

U<U

~

g g= y 1

2 1 p

( # Wind Velocity

\ T Vector N I l

\ I I

\

\

N / /Qs \

-' Maximum Wind Velocity

' A sr Primary Radius of Wind Velocity Distribution k

1 Figure 2: TYPICAL HURRICANE WIND FIELD PATTERN l

l l

l

_ ~ _ . -

. . __, . - ,- ~ ~ ... -

P gn 10 '

The center of the hurricane moves along a forward path which may assume i

any shape. L .ne program, it is assumed that the storm path is a straight line, since this is sufficiently accurate for predicting maximum surge elevations. The forward motion of the hurricane distorts the wind isovel pattern from a true circular pattern. This distortion is such that the wind field is symmetric about a radial line extending from the center of the hurricane through the point of maximum wind velocity in the hurricane. This radial line is called the " primary radius of wind velocity distribution" (f) of the hurricane. A typicel hurricane wind field pattern is shown in Figure 2.

The hurricane characteristics relevant to the problem are completely specified by the following parameters.

1. R = radius of maximum winds, nautical miles (n.mi.)

2. Umax = maximum sustained wind velocity (mph)

3. VT = translational velocity of the hurricane (knots)

Latitude,/,ofthehurricanecenter(indegrees).

4. l The geographic location of the hurricane must also be known.

)

5. c(,= angle between translational velocity vector and the primary

( radius of wind velocity distribution (degrees, positive l clockwise)

6. Path of hurricane relative to traverse line

7. Central and asymptotic barometric pressures of storm (inches of mercury)

These basic storm parameters are determined as follows:

(a) Radius of maximum winds, R, and translatory velocity, VT*

The probable range of variation of R and V T are given in Table i

( 1 of Ref. 4 for various geographical coordinates. This table shows 1

- - ~ '

~

P g3 11 r

the minimum and maximum valuca of these parameters. In general, higher minimum and higher maximum values are applicable at higher l latitudes .

(b) Central and asymptotic barometric pressure.

The central pressure of the storm .s given in the above referenced table as a function of geographical location and northern latitude, for latitudes ranging from 23 to 45 degrees. Figure 6 of Ref. 4 shows the variatio'n of the asymptotic barometric pressure as a function of latitudes for the saae range of latitudes. The central barometric pressure increases with increasing latitude while the asymptotic pressure decreases. Pressure values for latitudes out-